Partly allowed

Harry Joseph Francis v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2021WP/1306/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court stayed redevelopment under MHD Act 1976, granted liberty to represent grievances within 10 days, and accepted petitioner's undertaking to vacate premises upon receipt of draft coverage conditions.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation to Municipal Commissioner; undertaking accepted to vacate subject premises on receiving draft of Rs. 4,44,000/- for transit accommodation.

Harry Joseph Francis Vs the Municipal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

6- WP 1306 of 2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1306 OF 2021

¶5

Harry Joseph Francis

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr. D.S. Rajapurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Anoop Patil a/w. Ms.
Vandana Mahadik for MCGM

¶12

Mr. Jayant Vishwanath Walwatjar, Assistant Engineer (Building
Proposal)C-IV.

¶13

Mr. Ganesh Dada Deshmukh, Junior Engineer (Building &
Factory) ‘E’ Ward.

¶14

Pankajkumar Lilachand Jadhav, Assistant Engineer (Building &
Factory), ‘E’ Ward.

¶15

Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Ms. Ketki Gadkari a/w. Mr. Shon D. Gadgil
for Respondent No.4

¶16

CORAM : A. A. SAYED &
S. G. DIGE, JJ

¶17

DATED :8TH OCTOBER, 2021

¶18

V A Tikam

¶19

6- WP 1306 of 2021.doc

¶20

P.C.:

¶21

1.We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned
Senior Counsel for Respondent Corporation and learned Counsel
for respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the redevelopment of the property is undertaken under
section 33(7) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
Act, 1976, and 53 out of 57 occupants have already vacated. The
said statement is not disputed. In the circumstances, we are not
inclined to grant any relief to the Petitioner which would stall the
entire redevelopment project.

¶22

2.We, however, grant liberty to the Petitioner to make a
representation to Respondent No.1-Municipal Commissioner in
respect of his grievances. If such a representation is made
within ten days from today, the same shall be decided
expeditiously and in any event within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of the representation.

¶23

3.We record the statement of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner, who is present in the
Court, that the Petitioner shall vacate the subject premises i.e.
structure/ Shop Nos. 2030 & 2029, Byculla Division, N.M. Joshi
Marg, Byculla, Mumbai – 400 011 within a period of two weeks
from today upon receipt of the draft in a sum of Rs.4,44,000/-
@ Rs.37,000/- per month for transit accommodation of one year
as also shifting charges, in addition. We accept the statement as

¶24

V A Tikam 2/3

¶25

6- WP 1306 of 2021.doc

¶26

an undertaking to the Court. We make it clear that the
Petitioner shall not be denied license of the proposed new flour
mill only on the ground that the new flour mill is not an
independent structure.

¶27

4.The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All
contentions of the parties are kept open. Needless to state that it
would open for the Petitioner and Respondent No.4-Developer to
negotiate to accommodate the Petitioner’s new flour mill in an
independent structure at the rear side of the property.

¶28

3/3

¶29

V A Tikam

Harry Joseph Francis v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harry Joseph Francis v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

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

Qurratulaen a.Ghanchi and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Shri Dinesh Dattaram Jadhav Vs Mrs Diksha Dinesh Jadhav

Shri Dinesh Dattaram Jadhav Vs Mrs Diksha Dinesh Jadhav

Mr. Amit Bajirao Tambe Vs Mrs. Poonam Amit Tambe

Prabhudayal Shyamdev Arya Vs the Commissioner Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Hemant Prabhakar Kulkarni and Anr. Vs the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.