Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Umar Cao. Farid Ahmed Abdul Sami v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC1 Feb 2019CAA/43/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court received submissions from counsel for appellants challenging municipal orders. The appellant agreed not to press appeals if given three months to vacate structures upon undertaking. The court directed the filing of the undertaking within eight days, warning that failure to comply would result in demolition.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to file undertaking within 8 days to vacate structures; otherwise orders to demolish stand enforced. Appeals disposed of as per undertaking.

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Umar Cao. Farid Ahmed Abdul… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

osk

¶2

908-ao-35-2018.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 35 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2018

¶5

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Umar … Appellant V/s.

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent

¶7

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 36 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2018

¶8

Ashok Chimanlal Jain … Appellant V/s.

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent

¶10

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 37 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 2018

¶11

Dr.Priti Jagdish Gupta … Appellant V/s.

¶12

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent

¶13

WITH

¶14

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 38 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2018

¶15

Smt.Uzma Anwarkhan … Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent

1/4

osk

908-ao-35-2018.odt

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 39 OF 2018 WITH

¶20

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2018

¶21

Mohd. Naeem Ansari … Appellant V/s.

¶22

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent

¶23

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 40 OF 2018

¶24

Dindayal Sitahisahab Gupta … Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent

¶25

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 41 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2018

¶26

Shah Alam Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh & Anr. … Appellants V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent

¶27

Mr.Pradeep Thorat a/w. Mr.Anil R. Mishra for the AppellantsApplicants.

¶28

Mr.J. Reis, Senior Advocate a/w. Mrs.Madhuri More for the Respondent-MCGM.

¶29

CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶30

DATE : 1^st FEBRUARY, 2019.

¶31

2/4

¶32

osk 908-ao-35-2018.odt

¶33

P.C. :

¶34

1] Heard learned counsel for the Appellants-Applicants and l earned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation.

¶35

2] Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, on instructions, submits that for the period of three months the Respondent-Corporation will not take any action against the disputed structures, subject to Appellants furnishing undertaking within a period of eight days that they will vacate the suit structures after expiry of three months. If the Appellants fails to do so, the Respondent-Corporation will be entitled to demolish the suit structures. If is further submitted that the period of three months which is given to the Appellants only for the purpose of enabling the Appellants to take necessary steps for seeking their eligibility in SRA Scheme and it will not be used either for preferring any appeal against the order or for extending the period of three months.

¶36

3] In view thereof, learned counsel for the Appellants submits

¶37

that the Appellants will not be pressing these Appeals and hence, the Appeals along with Civil Applications stand disposed of as withdrawn.

¶38

3/4

¶39

osk 908-ao-35-2018.odt

¶40

4] The Appellants to file the necessary undertaking as stated above within the period of 8 days from today and if the undertaking is not filed and if even after filing of the undertaking the premises are not vacated within the stipulated period, the order passed by the trial Court will prevail and the Respondent-Corporation is entitled to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶41

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶42

4/4

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Umar Cao. Farid Ahmed Abdul Sami v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Umar Cao. Farid Ahmed Abdul Sami v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

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. Kaushalya Wd/O. Shymrao Jadhav (Original Respondent NO.3) Vs Smt. Bharati Prakash Jadahav and Ors.

Shri. Shankar Pandurang Patil and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Mr.Kantilal Kunverji Nagda and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Umar Cao. Farid Ahmed Abdul Sami Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mr. Dinkar Maruti Choudhary Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr. Asst.Municipal Commissioner

P. D. Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Anr. Vs Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors.