Disposed

Smt. Krishna M. Mirchandani. v. Shri Rajesh C. Rapchandani and Anrs

Bombay HC16 Jan 2023CP/390/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt petitions and a civil application regarding dilapidated disputed property, the Court disposed of proceedings as the main petition was discharged. It directed Court Receiver's discharge, transfer of possession to the Municipal Corporation, and demolition of the structure following due process.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petitions and Civil Application disposed; Court Receiver discharged; possession handed over to Municipal Corporation for demolition; respondents to deposit amount and pay demolition charges.

Smt. Krishna M. Mirchandani. Vs Shri Rajesh C. Rapchandani… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

26. cp 390-93.doc

¶2

R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

(SUO MOTU) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 390 OF 1993

¶6

Krishna M. Mirchandani .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Monica Constructions Co & Ors .. Respondents

¶9

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2017

¶10

Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation .. Applicant Krishan M. Mirchandani .. Petitioner Versus M/s. Monica Constructions Co & Ors .. Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 211 OF 1993 WITH COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 2 OF 2023

¶13

Krishan M. Mirchandani .. Petitioner

¶14

Versus Rajesh C. Rupchandani & Ors. .. Respondents

¶15

Mr. Ajit Jakhadi a/w Mr. Amol Anant Chile i/by Mr. Mayur S. Kadam and Mr. Amit Kukreja for Petitioner

¶16

Mr. Abhijeet Joshi i/by Ms. Pooja Joshi for Applicant in CAN 30/17 (Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation)

¶17

Mr. Ritvik Joshi i/by Mr. Sujay H. Gangal for Respondent No. 1

¶18

Mr. Sagar A. Joshi for Respondent No. 5

¶19

Mr. Amol Gatne, Amicus Curiae

¶20

Ms. Rekha V. Rane, 2^nd Assistant to Court Receiver

¶21

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JANUARY 16, 2023

1 of 5

26. cp 390-93.doc

P.C.:

1. Today the parties are before me. The Court Receiver has also filed Report No. 2 of 2023 which is served upon all the parties.

¶26

2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and Mr. Gatne, learned Amicus Curie. The Contempt Petitions were partly heard by this Court on 5th January, 2023.

¶27

3. Rule in Contempt Petition came to be issued by this Court by order dated 29.10.1993 on account of the breach of the status-quo order dated 18.06.1993 passed by the learned District Court, Thane and creation of third party rights by the Respondent No. 1 - Mr. Rupchandani. Prior thereto, by order dated 15.10.1993, the learned Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay came to be appointed with a direction to take the Physical possession of the disputed property i.e "Kamal Mohit Apartment" CHSL, Ulhasnagar-5. In compliance thereto, the property in question is under the lock and key of the larned Court Receiver.

¶28

4. Respondents Nos. 1 to 17 in (Suo-motu) Contempt Petition No. 390/1993 are the third party flat purchasers who were found to be in possession of some of the flats in breach of orders of status quo granted by the learned District Court.

¶29

5. Both Contempt Petitions were dismissed by the order dated 18.11.2011, however only Contempt Petition No. 390 of 1993 was

¶30

2 of 5

¶31

26. cp 390-93.doc

¶32

restored by order dated 21.02.2012. Further during the pendency of the Contempt Petitions as recorded by the order dated 24.08.2015, original Petitioner Mrs. Mirchandani is reportedly expired. Further going by the Records, it seems no steps have been taken by the legal heirs of the Petitioner to bring themselves on record for further prosecution of the Contempt Proceedings. So far as the Contempt Petition No. 390 of 1993 is concerned, during its pendency, even some of the Respondents have expired viz. Respondent Nos. 6 and 11. It stands dismissed as against the Contemnor Nos. 2 to 4, 9, 12 to 15.

¶33

6. In the aforesaid background, the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation has filed Civil Application No.30 of 2017 in Contempt Petition pointing out that property in question is in dilapidated state requiring demolition so as to avoid any untoward incident to the public at large and therefore prayed for grant of permission to demolish the dilapidated structure.

¶34

7. The learned Court Receiver has filed Court Receiver's Report No. 2/20023 as directed by order dated 05.01.2023. Further as recorded by the order dated 05.01.2023, all parties are ad idem that disputed structure is dilapidated and have given their consent to the Corporation for demolition of the same.

¶35

8. Considering the facts of the case in its totality, as the main Contempt Petition No. 211/1993 stands disposed off by order

¶36

3 of 5

¶37

26. cp 390-93.doc

¶38

dt:18/11/2011, no purpose would be served in further prosecuting the other Contempt Petition No. 390/1993 against the third party flat purchaserss alone. This is more so in the light of the fact that disputed structure stands vacated and is required to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation being in a dilapidated state. Rule issued in the Contempt Petition has achieved its purpose, if Municipal Corporation is permitted to take steps for demolition of the structure after following the due of process of law. More so since there is no challenge to the demolition notice issued by the Corporation either by Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 who claim to be the owners of plot on which the disputed structure stands or Respondent No. 1- Developer, the main contemnor or by the flat purchasers present before this Court.

¶39

9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, Contempt Petition

¶40

and the Civil Application can be disposed off by passing the following directions:

¶41

(i) Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 shall deposit the amount of Rs. 89,115/- as specified in the Court Receiver’s Report with Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai within four weeks from today;

¶42

(ii) The Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai stands discharged from Contempt Petition No. 211/1993 without passing accounts. Court Receiver’s Report

¶43

4 of 5

¶44

26. cp 390-93.doc

¶45

No. 2 of 2023 stands allowed in view of directions given in this order;

¶46

(iii) The Court Receiver to hand over the physical possession of the suit property i.e "Kamal Mohit Apartment" CHSL, Ulhasnagar-5 to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation;

¶47

(iv) Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation may take steps for demolition of the structure as prayed by it in CA No. 30/2017 after following the due process of law and on completion of the exercise, handover the possession of plot to Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 on behalf of all legal heirs of the owner of the plot as per the record maintained by Corporation. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are liable to pay all demolition charges of the Corporation before getting possession of the plot from the Corporation.

¶48

10. In view of the above directions, the Contempt Petitions, Civil Application as well as Court Receiver’s Report stands disposed.

¶49

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶50

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA MOHAN MOHAN AMBERKAR AMBERKAR Date: 2023.01.17 14:32:50 +0530

¶51

5 of 5

Smt. Krishna M. Mirchandani. v. Shri Rajesh C. Rapchandani and Anrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Krishna M. Mirchandani. v. Shri Rajesh C. Rapchandani and Anrs

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

Jay Mahadaba Textile Industries through Its Proprietor Santosh Koli Alias Bal Maharaj Vs Sara Chemicals

Satyanarayan Bhavarlal Jakhotiya Vs Kisan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Direct-Jayeshbhai Rameshbhai Patel

Smt. Gangubai Laxman Bhoir (Decd) through Lrs. Vs Nijamuddin Badriddom Jalal (Decd) through Lrs. and Ors.

Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, Thru. Dy. Commissioner Vs Smt Krishna Mengomal Mirchandani (Deceased)

Kishor H Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gajanan Kacharu Meher and Ors. Vs Goma Pandu Tamhane and Ors.