Disposed

M/S. Pawani and Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC27 Oct 2023AO/695/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge Bench disposed of an appeal by directing the lower court to expedite the trial of the underlying suit (L.C. Suit Na.1445 of 2018) and decide it within 18 months. The status quo order implies the matter remains pending trial despite status quo order passed earlier. The case is about whether the trial court should expedite the hearing of the suit. The appeal was disposed of with a

What did the court decide?

The Appeal was disposed of with a request to the City Civil Court to expedite the hearing of the L.C. Suit Na.1445 of 2018 and to make an endeavour to decide the same as expeditiously as possible pref

M/S. Pawani and Co. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

k 1/3 12 ao 695.19 as.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.695 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.828 OF 2019 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.695 OF 2019

¶4

M/s. Pawani & Co. ....Appellant/Applicant V/S Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ....Respondent

¶5

Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Appellant/Applicant. Ms. Smita Tondwalkar for Respondent-MCGM.

¶6

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : OCTOBER 27, 2023.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

1 The challenge in the present Appeal is to the order dated 30 June 2018 passed by the City Civil Court rejecting Draft Notice of Motion tendered by the Plaintiff seeking temporary injunction to restrain the Municipal Corporation from acting on the notice dated 20 February 2018 issued under the provisions of section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporations Act, 1888.

¶9

2 This Court has granted an order of status quo in the present Appeal on 4 July 2018 which order continues to operate till date.

¶10

1/3

¶11

katkam

¶12

k 2/3 12 ao 695.19 as.doc

¶13

3 I have heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Ms. Tondwalkar, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Municipal Corporation.

¶14

4 Considering the submissions canvassed by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it appears that arguable questions are raised in the Appeal. Mr. Saraogi has placed reliance on the repair permission issued in respect of the suit structure. However, the City Civil Court has refused to believe that the said document is the repair permission. Be that as it may, it appears that the trial of the suit has commenced. Mr. Saraogi would submit that the Plaintiff has already filed his evidence. In that view of the matter and considering the fact that the interim order of status quo is in operation for the last more than five years, it would be appropriate to request the City Civil Court to take up the suit for decision rather than determining the correctness of the impugned order at this stage.

¶15

5 Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of with a request to the City Civil Court to expedite the hearing of the L.C. Suit No.1445 of 2018 and to make an endeavour to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 18 months from today. Till the decision of the suit, status quo order passed by this Court on 4 July 2018 to continue to operate.

¶16

2/3

¶17

katkam

¶18

k 3/3 12 ao 695.19 as.doc

¶19

6 With the above directions, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶20

7 In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil

¶21

Application also accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶23

3/3

¶24

katkam

M/S. Pawani and Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Pawani and Co. 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devdarshan Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Thorugh Chairman B.M. Rajpurohit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

G. a. Digital Web World Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rashtriya Sarva Shramik Sangh and Ors.

Sachin Dayaram Murav Vs the President/Secretary, Nashik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Puj Dharamwadi Panchayat Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

M/S. Jyoti Electric Trading Co. Thr. Partner Mr. Chirag Kishore Ahuja Vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune Thr. the Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Shivaji Apate and Ors. Vs M/S. Dhopeshwar Sahkari Matchya Vyavasayik Sanstha Ltd. Shirala and Ors.