Mr.Joginder Singh Vijan v. the Assistant Commissioner,'E' Ward

Bombay HC1 Aug 2019AO/715/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court discharged an interlocutory appeal against an order rejecting interim relief in a demolition notice case. Having directed the trial court to decide the notice of motion and maintained the status quo, the court disposed of the appeal and the ancillary civil application. The bench subsequently granted the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The trial court directed to decide the Notice of Motion within 12 weeks; parties directed to maintain status-quo pending the decision; Civil Application disposed of.

Mr.Joginder Singh Vijan Vs the Assistant Commissioner,'E' Ward — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

ao 715.16.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 715 OF 2016 WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 903 OF 2016

¶7

Mr.Joginder Singh Vijan .. Appellant Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, 'E' ward .. Respondent

¶8

Mr.Jaydeep K.Raut i/b M/s.Corpslegal, for the Appellant. Mrs.Madhuri More, for the MCGM.

¶9

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : 01^st AUGUST, 2019

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. The order impugned is dated 25/01/2016 passed by

¶13

the City Civil Court, Mumbai which has refused to grant any adinterim relief in favour of the plaintiff. The notice was issued by

¶14

the Corporation to the plaintiff on 07/10/2015 for “unauthorized construction of two rooms with B.M. wall & ladi coba slab/AC Sheet roof adm. 6'.00'' x 6'.00'' x 7'.00'' and height 18'.00'' x 14'.00'' x 9'.00'' ”. Another notice also came to be

¶15

1/3

¶16

ao 715.16.doc

¶17

issued. For the reasons mentioned in the order, the trial Court refused to grant any ad-interim relief in favour of the appellant. The order was passed on 25/01/2016. Thereafter in this Appeal by order dated 03/02/2016, this Court by an interim order directed that if the impugned structure is not demolished, the same shall not be demolished till 09/02/2016. Interim order was continued from time to time.

¶18

In this view of the matter and as the Notice of

¶19

Motion is pending, the trial Court is directed to decide the Notice of Motion preferably within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶20

If the Corporation has not filed the detailed reply to the Notice of Motion, the same shall be filed within a period of 4 weeks from today.

¶21

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that structure has been partly demolished and even

¶22

2/3

¶23

ao 715.16.doc

¶24

the trial Court has recorded this. In this view of the matter, parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the decision of the Notice of Motion.

¶25

Appeal from Order is disposed of in the above terms. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and the same shall stand disposed of.

¶26

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶27

3/3

Mr.Joginder Singh Vijan v. the Assistant Commissioner,'E' Ward

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Joginder Singh Vijan v. the Assistant Commissioner,'E' Ward

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Sudha Narayan Munishwar Vs Shri.Ananda Pandurang Bhosale and Others

Abdul Sattar a. R. Shaikh Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Abdul Sattar a. R. Shaikh Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Usha Lal Gulabani and Anr. Vs Namrata Manoharlal Hinduja and Ors.

Mrs. Sneha Sinha W/O. Mr. Kumar Animesh Vs Mr. Kumar Animesh S/O. Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma

Mrs. Sneha Sinha W/O. Mr. Kumar Animesh Vs Mr. Kumar Animesh S/O. Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma