Disposed

M/S. Kalyani Veg Hotel, Thr. Its Proprietor Shri. Raghuram Narayan Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2018CP/111/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought punishment for contempt and direction to restore a demolished structure. The Court observed available photographs, advised alternate remedy for property damage, and kept merit issues open. The contest petition was disposed of without granting relief.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. Kalyani Veg Hotel, Thr. Its Proprietor Shri… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

14-cp-111-18.doc

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2018

¶6

M/s. Kalyani Veg Hotel

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Mandar Limaye I/by Mr. Ketan A. Dhavle for petitioner. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. R. M. Pethe for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶12

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, ACTING CJ. & G. S. KULKARNI, J.

¶13

SEPTEMBER 24, 2018.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

The petitioner seeks following substative relief :-

¶16

(a) That the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be suitably punished for the contempt committed by them of the order dated 9/3/2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3011 of 2016;

¶17

(b) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to purge the

¶18

¶19

14-cp-111-18.doc

¶20

contempt by restoring the movable structure to its original position and further decide the representation / application dated 19/3/2016 for regularization;

¶21

¶22

(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents be restrained from damaging the said property.

¶23

It is submitted that earlier notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the Act of 1966). The petitioner submitted an application for regularization under Section 53(3) of the Act of 1966. The respondent – Corporation suddenly demolished the subject structure.

¶24

We have seen the photographs placed before us, particularly photograph at page 47.

¶25

In the facts, we observe that petitioner may resort to alternate remedy in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the Corporation

¶26

¶27

14-cp-111-18.doc

¶28

causing damage to the subject property of the petitioner. All issues on

¶29

merits are kept open.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.

¶31

G. S. KULKARNI J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

Pravin Dasharath Pandit

¶33

Digitally signed by Pravin Dasharath Pandit Date: 2018.09.24 15:26:51 +0530

M/S. Kalyani Veg Hotel, Thr. Its Proprietor Shri. Raghuram Narayan Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Kalyani Veg Hotel, Thr. Its Proprietor Shri. Raghuram Narayan Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kesarben Khushalchand Nagda Vs the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane and Ors.

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Sapphire Bar and Restaurant Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Leela Vinay Pandey Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Akhtar Abdul Bari Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.