Disposed

Gokul Harmony Chsl v. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai

Bombay HC16 Oct 2018WP/2938/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition against the Respondents, who had issued notices for coercive action, pending regularization. The High Court directed parties to maintain status quo for three weeks to enable the petitioner to pursue the available alternate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Directing parties to maintain status quo for three weeks to enable petitioner to pursue alternate remedy.

Gokul Harmony Chsl Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

904-wp-2938-18.doc

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2938 OF 2018

¶5

Gokul Harmony CHSL .. Petitioner Vs.

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and anr. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Mohammed Zain Khan for petitioner. Ms. Rupali Adhate for MCGM.

¶8

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

¶9

OCTOBER 16, 2018.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The petitioner's regularization application was pending during

¶12

which period petitioner filed present petition and prayed for following substantive relief :-

¶13

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other writ or direction in the nature of Prohibition against the Respondent No.1 thereby directing it not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner or the Building Gokul Harmony as contemplated by the Respondent No.1 under the said notices dated 22^nd March 2018 and 9^th May 2018 or any other manner till such time the regularization of the Building Gokul Harmony is completed.

¶14

¶15

904-wp-2938-18.doc

¶16

The learned counsel for the Corporation tendered affidavit-in-

¶17

reply of Mr. Anil N. Anap, Assistant Engineer (Building & Factory) (I/c) H/East Ward on behalf of the Corporation, which is taken on record. The deponent has made a statement that regularization application proposals filed by the petitioner on 7/8/2018 and 5/9/2018 were filed without complying mandatory documents required for the said proposal and, therefore, both the proposals were rejected on 10/8/2018 and 6/9/2018. There is an alternate efficacious remedy against the said order, rejecting the regularization proposals.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for status quo as on today for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to resort to alternate remedy as available in law.

¶19

We direct the parties to maintain status quo as on today for a period of three weeks from today in respect of the subject structure / building to enable the petitioner to resort to an appropriate alternate remedy as available in law.

¶20

¶21

904-wp-2938-18.doc

¶22

Needless to observe, if the petitioner does not resort to an

¶23

alternate remedy within the period as directed and seek appropriate orders

¶24

in such proceedings, the Corporation shall be free to take action as per law.

¶25

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly in the above terms.

¶26

G. S. KULKARNI J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Gokul Harmony Chsl v. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Harmony Chsl v. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sai Heritage Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Pune Municipal Corporatio and Ors.

Ravikant Ronakkchand Agarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Mahendra Mathuradas Anam and 4 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Sanjay Phulwaria and 22 Others Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and 4 Others

Sanjay Phulwaria and 22 Others Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and 4 Others

Inderlok Infra-Agro Pvt.Ltd Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.