Disposed

Meeta Vasudeo Nene v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2018WP/355/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging failure to adhere to agreement regarding permanent alternate accommodation and transit rent payment under Development Control Regulations disposed without opinion on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Meeta Vasudeo Nene Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(906) WP 355-17.doc

¶2

Amk

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 355 OF 2017

¶5

Meeta Vasudeo Nene .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharahtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. R. M. Haridas i/b Mr. R. S. Matkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. A. G. Damle, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr. J. M. Joshi for the Respondent No.4. Mr. P. G. Lad a/w. Ms. Aparna Murlidhara for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶8

P. C.

¶9

The above Petition has been filed on the ground that the Agreement in respect of providing permanent alternate accommodation entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 one Richa India Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. has not been adhered to in the matter of making the payment of the transit rent so as to enable the Petitioner to make temporary arrangement for her residence pending the implementation of the redevelopment scheme undertaken of the building in which the Petitioner was residing under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1999. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner has been paid the transit rent @ Rs.31190/- p.m. upto July, 2018.

¶10

1/2

¶11

(906) WP 355-17.doc

¶12

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Haridas fairly accepts the said position. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 Mr. Damle states that the Petitioner has been paid the transit rent at the same rate as the other erstwhile tenants of the building in question and would be continued to be paid the amount which is paid to the other tenants. The learned Senior Counsel further states that the Petitioner would be made payment as per the Agreement in question.

¶13

In view of the aforestated terms, there is now no warrant to keep the above Petition pending. In terms of the statements which are recorded, the above Writ Petition to stand disposed of.

¶14

[K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.]

¶15

Digitally signed by Arjun Arjun Machhindra Machhindra Kadam Kadam Date: 2018.09.14 14:16:21 +0530

¶16

2/2

Meeta Vasudeo Nene v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Meeta Vasudeo Nene v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Joint Director (Treausuries) Vs Mrs. Suvarna Umesh Sant and Ors.

Kalpana Springwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Savita Ashok Pethe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Rajendra Thakur Vs Smt. Babita G. Giri, Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny Committe and Ors.

Upendra K. Kudva Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 3 Others

Kranti Madhukar Patil Vs Syndicate Bank, through Chairman Head Office at Udapi Karnataka and Ors.