Disposed

deputy salt commissioner and Anr. v. vikas kamalakar walawalkar and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2019APP/534/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that in light of the lease expiry and refusal of renewal, it was unnecessary to decide the appeal on merits. The Court directed the appellant to seek modification or vacation of the interim injunction from the Single Judge in light of changed circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Directing the appellants to file an application before the learned Single Judge for modifying or vacating the interim injunction.

deputy salt commissioner and Anr. Vs vikas kamalakar… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

5 app 534 of 2006.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.534 OF 2006

¶3

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1247 OF 2005 IN

¶5

SUIT NO.1172 OF 2005

¶6

The Deputy Salt Commissioner and Anr. versus

¶7

Vikas Kamalakar Walawalkar and Anr.

… Appellants

… Respondents

WITH

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.160 OF 2019 IN

¶12

APPEAL NO.534 OF 2006 IN

¶13

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1247 OF 2005 IN

¶14

SUIT NO.1172 OF 2005

¶15

State of Maharashtra … Applicant in the matter of Deputy Salt Commissioner and Anr. … Appellants versus Vikas Kamalakar Walawalkar and Anr. … Respondents

¶16

Mr. Rajguru with Mr. Ashish Mehta, Mr. Mohit Sahani i/by Mr. Ashish Mehta, for Org. Appellants.

¶17

Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kedar Dighe, for Applicant in NMA.

¶18

Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas, Mr. Anirudh Hariani i/by Mahimtura and Co., for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sagar Patil, for MCGM.

¶19

CORAM: AKIL KURESHI &

¶20

S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

¶21

DATE: 22^nd AUGUST, 2019

¶22

SSP 1/5

¶23

5 app 534 of 2006.doc

¶24

P.C.:

¶25

This Appeal is fled by the Deputy Salt Commissioner and another, Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to challenge the interim injunction order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5^th June, 2006 in a Notice of Motion taken out by the Original Plaintif, who is Respondent No.1 in the present Appeal. By the said Judgment in the case of Vikas Kamalakar Walawalkar /s. Deputy Salt Commissioner and Ors.,1 the learned Single Judge has granted the Notice of Motion in terms of prayers clauses (a) and (b). Prayer clause (a) is the relief pending the disposal of the Suit restraining the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from acting in furtherance of an order dated 1^st April, 2005. Prayer clause (b) is for restraint pending the Suit against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from entering upon the salt lands described at Exhibit B to the Plaint. By such injunction order, thus, the Original Defendants and in particular, the Salt Commissioner have been injuncted from evicting the Plaintif from the suit lands, for which the Plaintif claims to have entered into the lease agreement with the Sale Commissioner. It is this judgment which the Deputy Salt Commissioner has challenged in the present Appeal.

¶26

1 AIR 2006 Bom 265

¶27

SSP

¶28

5 app 534 of 2006.doc

¶29

The Notice of Motion is taken out by the State of Maharashtra with a prayer to direct the parties to immediately handover vacant possession of the part of the suit lands to the State Government. According to the State Government, these lands are of the ownership of the State and which are required for the purpose of solid waste management . Hence the prayer.

¶30

Pending the Appeal, further developments have taken place which we need to take note of. The lease period for the lands in question having expired on 14^th October, 2016, the Plaintif had applied for renewal of the lease. The Deputy Salt Commissioner having refused to extend the lease, the Plaintif sought amendment of the Suit. The Union of India has fled a Notices of Motion before the learned Single Judge and prayed for dismissal of the Suit and for handing over the possession of the lands in question. These Notices of Motions were disposed of by common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9^th November, 2017. Liberty was granted to the Plaintif to amend the Suit. Prayer for dismissal of the Suit was dismissed. Prayer for handing over possession of the lands was not pressed. To complete the narration, we record that this order was challenged in two separate Appeals (L) No.459 and 460 of 2017 by the Deputy Salt Commissioner. These Appeals

¶31

SSP 3/5

¶32

5 app 534 of 2006.doc

¶33

came to be dismissed by common order dated 27^th August, 2018.

¶34

The facts on record would therefore, suggest that after the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order of injunction, several developments have taken place. The injunction was granted testing the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss on the basis of factors which obtained at the relevant time. In this Appeal, ordinarily at this distant point of time, we would not have been inclined to disturb the injunction which had prevailed for a long time. However, certain fresh developments would have the bearing on the question of the Plaintif continuing with the possession of the lands under the injunction granted by the learned Single Judge. Such relevant developments are the expiry of the lease period, application by the Plaintif for renewal of the lease and refusal of the Deputy Salt Commissioner to do so. These developments are already brought on record by the Plaintif through amendment which has been granted.

¶35

In view of such further developments, we do not fnd it necessary to entertain this Appeal on merits. Instead, we leave it to the Deputy Salt Commissioner if so advised to fle appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for modifying/vacating the interim injunction in view of changed circumstances. It is

¶36

SSP 4/5

¶37

5 app 534 of 2006.doc

¶38

clarifed that if such an application is fled, the same would be decided in accordance with law. All contentions of the Plaintif including whether such an application is maintainable are kept open.

¶39

In view of the disposal of the Appeal, the Notice of Motion fled by the State Government would automatically stand disposed of, however with a clarifcation that nothing stated in this order would prevent the State Government from pursuing its legal options, subject to legal defences of the Plaintif.

¶40

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. )

¶41

SSP

deputy salt commissioner and Anr. v. vikas kamalakar walawalkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

deputy salt commissioner and Anr. v. vikas kamalakar walawalkar and Anr.

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

Shri Anandram Chandandas Lund (Shahani) Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Udhav Rajani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Murli Shyamlal Sachdev Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Relief and Rehabilitation Dept. and Anr.

lachmandas bhojraj makhija and Anr. Vs janki bhojraj makhija and 9 Ors. and Mamatalachmandas Makhija and Anr. (Applicant)

Dy. Salt Commissioner and Anr. Vs vikas kamalakar walawalkar and Anr. and State of Maharashtra (Dept. of Revenue and Forest)(Applicant

Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mhada