Disposed

Mansur Ahmed Nizamuddin Shalkh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2016WP/224/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions were disposed of based on consent terms filed by the parties. The High Court accepted the settlement agreement and ordered withdrawal of the petitions challenging demolition notices and state actions.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were disposed of by accepting the consent terms and instructing parties to act upon them.

Mansur Ahmed Nizamuddin Shalkh Vs the Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

904-wp-224-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.224 OF 2016

¶4

Mansur Ahmed Nizamuddin Shaikh ...Petitioner vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others ...Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1930 OF 2014

¶7

Click Investments & Trading Co. Private Limited ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. M.A. Khan, for the Petitioner in WP. No. 224 of 2016 and for Respondent No. 3 in WP. No. 1930 of 2014.

¶9

Ms. Lara Jasani a/w. Mr. S.M. Algus i/b. Mulla & Mulla Associates, for Respondent No. 5 in WP. No. 224 of 2016 and for the Petitioner in WP. No. 1930 of 2014.

¶10

Ms. Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP for Respondent No. 1 in WP. No. 1930 of 2014.

¶11

Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar, for the Respondent-BMC.

¶12

Mr. Haji Muzafar Ahamad, the Petitioner in person in WP. No. 224 of 2016 is present.

¶13

Mr. Rahul Mittal, the Director of the Petitioner in person in WP. No. 1930 of 2014 is present.

¶14

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

¶15

DATE : JULY 29, 2016

1/2

Vishal Parekar

904-wp-224-2016

P.C.:

parties through their counsel.

¶21

The Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 224 of 2016 have filed the consent terms. This Petition challenges the notice issued by the Corporation for demolition of the structure in question. Now the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 have made settlement and filed the consent terms and in terms of it the Petitioner is seeking withdrawal of the Petition.

¶22

The said consent terms dated 29^th July, 2016 are taken on record and marked 'X' for the purpose of identification. We find that the consent terms are legal and proper and signed by the parties. The consent terms are accepted. In the circumstances, in view of the terms in the consent terms, the Writ Petition No. 224 of 2016 is disposed of. The parties to act upon the consent terms.

¶23

In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 224 of 2016 which has been disposed of in terms of the consent terms, the Writ Petition No. 1930 of 2014 also stands disposed of.

¶24

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.)

¶25

2/2

¶26

Vishal Parekar

Mansur Ahmed Nizamuddin Shalkh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansur Ahmed Nizamuddin Shalkh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Nagar Rahivasi Sangh Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Shri Maruti Sonaba Chorge (Org.Respondent) Vs Maharastra Rajya Sahakari Krushi Gramin Vikas Bank Maraydit., (Org. Petitioner)

M/S. Accent Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Click Investment and Trading Co. Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Shalik Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Chatur Asaram Galhate Vs the Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.