Dismissed

Smt. Rashmi Ramesh Mhatre and Others v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr. Its Principal Officer and Others

Bombay HC26 Oct 2021AO/357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil appeal challenging the Trial Court's refusal of interim relief. The Bench found no merit to interfere, noting that a crucial prior consent order had not been annexed and a necessary party (Smile Shelters) was not impleaded to challenge the Intimation of Disapproval.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and the accompanying interim applications are dismissed.

Smt. Rashmi Ramesh Mhatre and Others Vs the Municipal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Tandale

¶2

 21-Ao-357-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 357 OF 2021 WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3074 OF 2021

¶7

Smt. Rashmi Ramesh Mhatre and Ors.… Appellants
 (Orig.Plaintiffs.)

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
and Others.

¶10

… Respondents
 (Orig.Defendants.)

¶11

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3075 OF 2021 IN

¶12

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.357 OF 2021

¶13

M/s. Smile Shelter.… Applicant.
In the matter between :-
Smt. Rashmi Ramesh Mhatre and Ors.… Appellants
V/s.

¶14

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
and Others.… Respondents

¶15

Mr. Jitendrakumar G. Damani a/w Ms.Mansi C. Pandit and Shawn Fernandes
for Appellants in AO No.357 of 2021 and IA No.3074 of 2021.

¶16

Mr. Kavyal Shah a/w Mr. Swapan Samdani for Respondent Nos.5 to 8 and for
Applicant in IA No.3075 OF 2021.

¶17

Ms.Tanaya Goswami, A.G.P. for Respondent – State.

¶18

Smt.Madhuri More for Respondent – MCGM.

¶19

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 26th October, 2021.

¶20

1/3

¶21

Tandale

¶22

 21-Ao-357-2021.odt

¶23

P.C. :

¶24

1.By the present Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the Appellants/original Plaintiffs have impugned Order dated 18th
September, 2021 passed in Notice of Motion No.1777 of 2021, thereby
refusing to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the Appellants.

¶25

2.At the outset, it is to be noted here that, the Appellants though
not suppressed but have not annexed to the Appeal most important document,
i.e. an Order dated 27th June, 2017 passed in Notice of Motion (L) No.1070 of
2017 in Suit (L) No.316 of 2017 by this Court, thereby disposing of the said
Notice of Motion along with Suit in view of the Consent Terms filed by the
parties therein. That, the Appellants herein were Defendants in the said suit
and had agreed to abide by certain obligations, more specifically mentioned in
the said Consent Terms dated 27th June, 2017. The said Order holds field as
of today and is not set aside either by higher Court or by any Court of
Competent Jurisdiction.

¶26

3.In this background, the Appellants filed the present suit bearing
L.C. Suit No.1752 of 2021 for an Order and Decree declaring that, the IOD
(Intimation of Disapproval) issued under Section 346 of the Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 by the Defendants Nos.3 and 4 therein is not binding
upon the Appellants; bad in law and for other various consequential reliefs,
more specifically mentioned in the prayer clause of the Plaint.

¶27

2/3

¶28

 21-Ao-357-2021.odt

¶29

Tandale

¶30

The Appellants also filed Notice of Motion No.1777 of 2021 with
it for interim reliefs. As noted earlier, the Trial Court by its impugned Order
dated 18th September, 2021 has refused to grant ad-interim relief in favour of
the Appellants.

¶31

4.It is to be noted here that, the IOD (Intimation of Disapproval) is
issued in favour of Shri Samir Pravin Sanghvi, partner of M/s. Smile Shelters,
who has purchased 50% of the undivided share from the co-owners of the suit
property, namely, Mr.Jayprakash Narayan Patil and Anil Narayan Patil. It is
the said Smile Shelters, who is constructing the building on the suit property.

¶32

Despite the said fact and relief is sought for declaration the said IOD
(Intimation of Disapproval) as bad in law, the said ‘Smile Shelters’ has not
been impleaded as a necessary party in the suit so also in the present Appeal.
5.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that, no
case to interfere with the impugned Order is made out. Perusal of impugned
Order indicates that, no error apparent on the face of record is committed by
the Trial Court while passing the same.

¶33

Appeal being dehors of merits, is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

6.In view of dismissal of Appeal itself, Interim Application Nos.3074

¶35

of 2021 and 3075 of 2021 do not survive and are accordingly disposed off.

¶36

Digitally signed MANOJ R by MANOJ RTANDALE TANDALE Date: 2021.10.29 14:54:16 +0530

¶37

3/3

Smt. Rashmi Ramesh Mhatre and Others v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr. Its Principal Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rashmi Ramesh Mhatre and Others v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr. Its Principal Officer and Others

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

M/S. Gorgeous Skin Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs S. H. a. M. K. Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Through Ms. Mountmary Nadar

Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs Indo Nippon Chemical Comapnay Limited

Prabhakar Popatrao Pingale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Thomas Albert Netto Vs Ajit Dattaram Ambekar and Anr.

Thomas Albert Netto Vs Ajit Dattaram Ambekar and Anr.

Lankesh @ Babya Sanjay Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra