Dismissed

Pure Value Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd., Thr. C.A. Rakesh Kothari v. Municipal Cororation of Greater Mumbai, and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Mar 2021CP/532/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt petition filed by a private limited company against the Municipal Corporation. The Court ruled that the contempt petition was not sustainable, directed the Corporation to seek police assistance for the building audit within four weeks, and dismissed pending interim applications.

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Corporation directed to seek police assistance to execute the structural audit order within four weeks; all applications disposed of.

Pure Value Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 9-cp 532-19-IA3307-20-3196-20-3478-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND

¶3

IN ITS CONTEMPT JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 532 OF 2019
IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1426 OF 2015

¶6

Pure Value Infra Venture Pvt.Ltd....Petitioner

¶7

 Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.....Contemnors

¶8

with
Interim Application No.3307 of 2020
and
Interim Application No.3196 of 2020
and
Interim Application No.3478 of 2019

¶9

Ms.Gandhar Raikar with Ms.Gaurangi Patil and Ms.Uma Chatterjee i/b.
GP & Associates, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Joquim Reis, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dhananjay Deshmukh,
Mr.Vinod Mahadik, Mr.Santosh Parad i/b. Aruna Savla, for the
Respondent – MCGM.

¶11

CORAM:SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 23 MARCH 2021
---

¶12

P. C.

¶13

1.This contempt petition is filed alleging contempt of the

¶14

order dated 8th December 2017 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this

¶15

Court in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.216 of

¶16

2017 wherein it was observed thus:-

¶17

 1 of 3

¶18

 9-cp 532-19-IA3307-20-3196-20-3478-19.doc

¶19

“ Hence, we dispose of the writ petitions with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties on the following terms:-

¶20

(i) The TAC would prepare a fresh report after carrying out the visual inspection and the specific tests that are required to be carried out as per the directions in the judgment in Writ Petition (L) No.1135 of 2014 within four months.

¶21

(ii)The expenses for carrying out the specific tests as per
the judgment in Writ Petition (L) No.1135 of 2014 would be
borne equally by the landlord on one part and the tenants
on the other.

¶22

(iii)The tenants and the occupiers of the building may
reside in the same at their risk and costs.

¶23

(iv)No order as to costs.”

¶24

2. In the contempt petition, interim applications are taken out by

¶25

the Corporation seeking directions putting restraint on the existing
tenants/occupiers of the building from obstructing the applicants/
Corporation in taking action according to the order including structural
audit of the building and executing the order passed by this Court.
The applications refer to various circumstances under which they could
not comply with the order passed by this Court. As such, compliance
could not take place as stipulated in the said order. These aspects have
not been disputed.

¶26

3. The respondent/Corporation may seek assistance of the

¶27

concerned police station (Vakola, Santacruz) for taking action pursuant
to order of this Court dated 8th December 2017 including to carry out

¶28

 2 of 3

¶29

 9-cp 532-19-IA3307-20-3196-20-3478-19.doc

¶30

inspection and structural audit of the suit building with necessary tests.
We expect police to take steps to assist the Corporation in executing the
order of this Court. We also expect that necessary action in respect of
the order dated 8th December 2017 would be taken within a period of
four weeks from the date of this order.

¶31

4. In view of aforesaid, the contempt petition would not be sustainable. The contempt petition stands disposed of. All pending applications as well stand disposed of.

¶32

( G. S. KULKARNI, J. ) ( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶33

Digitally signed by PrajaktaS.Vartak Prajakta S.VartakDate:2021.03.23 18:36:31 +0530

¶34

 3 of 3

Pure Value Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd., Thr. C.A. Rakesh Kothari v. Municipal Cororation of Greater Mumbai, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pure Value Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd., Thr. C.A. Rakesh Kothari v. Municipal Cororation of Greater Mumbai, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatin K Koticha Vs ACIT-20(1)

Commissioner of Income TAX-3 Vs Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd.

Deepak Naraindas Basantani Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp. Thru the Commissioner, and Ors.