Disposed

Money Magnum Nest Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2021WP/2859/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay observed that a representation by the petitioner remained un-decided despite a previous order. The Court directed the respondents to decide the matter within one week, permitted an additional representation, and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to decide representation within one week; allowed withdrawal of petition.

Money Magnum Nest Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 10-WP 2859-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2859 OF 2021

¶4

Money Magnum Nest Private Limited… Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.… Respondents

¶5

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Karl Tamboly, Counsel a/w Mr.
Vivek Vashi a/w Ms. Chandni Dewani i/by Vashi and Vashi for the
Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel a/w Joel Carlos and Pooja Yadav i/by Sunil
Sonawane for Respondent No.2-MCGM.

¶7

CORAM :A.A. SAYED &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

¶8

DATE :15TH DECEMBER 2021

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. On 25^th October, 2021, we had passed the following order :-

¶11

“1. List the Petition on 22^nd November, 2021, ‘High on Board’.

¶12

2. Let the representation dated 16^th October, 2021 of the Petitioner through Architect made to the Sub-Engineer, Building Proposal (City)-IV (Exh. ‘F’, page 64 of the Petition) be decided before the next date and a copy of the said decision be placed on record on the next date.”

¶13

2. Despite the aforesaid order, the said representation has not

¶14

been decided. It is pointed out that such representation is also made to the

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

Mugdha

¶17

2 10-WP 2859-21.odt

¶18

Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department on 22nd October,
2020 (Page 390 of the Petition).

¶19

3.In the circumstances, we direct the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development Department to decide the aforesaid representation dated
22nd October, 2020 of the Petitioner within one week from the day this
order is placed before him. The Petitioner is permitted to file additional
representation, which shall be filed within two days from today.

¶20

4.In view of the above, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Petition. The Petition is allowed to
be withdrawn and to stand disposed of. All contentions of the Petitioner
including the contention that the Petitioner would be entitled to the 50%
concession granted by the State Government on the premium payable by
the Developers (in the event the concession is not extended beyond 31st
December, 2021) for the alleged wrongful rejection of the proposal, are
kept open.

¶21

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA M M PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2021.12.15 18:28:38 +0530

¶23

2 of 2

¶24

Mugdha

Money Magnum Nest Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Money Magnum Nest Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandra Reclamation Area Volunteers Organization (Bravo through Its Hon. Secretary) Vs Vice Chairman and Managing Director Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (Msrdc)and 2 Ors.

Smt. Urmila Prakash Thakur, Thr. C.A. Shri Saprem P. Thakur Vs the Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Brightmen Property Consultants LLP Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Anr.

M/S Saiyyad Asif Ali Thr Its Proprietor Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Gajanan Damodar Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Ors.

Mrs. Shammi Nagpal Vs Mr. Sudhir Lalchand Nagpal