Disposed

Tilakdhari Sitiaprasad Yadav v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC5 Dec 2023IA/2340/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of interim relief in a case involving a notice under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The Court directed the City Civil Court to decide the pending Notice of Motion for temporary injunction within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the City Civil Court to decide the Notice of Motion for temporary injunction within two months.

Tilakdhari Sitiaprasad Yadav Vs the Municipal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

k 1/2 906 ao 334.22 as.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.334 OF 2022

¶4

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2340 OF 2022 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.334 OF 2022 …

¶5

Tilakdhari Sitiaprasad Yadav ....Appellant/Applicant V/S The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ....Respondents …

¶6

Mr. Jagdish N. Jayale a/w Mr. Jayesh Jayale for the Appellant/Applicant. Ms. Smita V. Tondwalkar for Respondents/MCGM.

¶7

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 05, 2023.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1 The challenge in the present Appeal is to the order dated 22 December 2020 passed by the City Civil Court rejecting the ad interim reliefs in Draft Notice of Motion tendered by the Appellant/Plaintiff in L.C. Suit No.1553 of 2020 instituted by Plaintiff/Appellant challenging the notice dated 26 November 2020 issued under the provisions of section 314 read with section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ( the MMC Act ). It is alleged in the notice that the suit structure is located on Koldongri Minor Nalla, Andheri (E). In reply submitted by

¶10

1/2

¶11

katkam

¶12

k 2/2 906 ao 334.22 as.doc

¶13

the Plaintiff, it is alleged that the location of structure is not on Koldongri Minor Nalla. It appears that the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has not passed any speaking order on the reply filed by the Plaintiff. Be that as it may, since substantial period of time elapsed from the date of refusal of ad-interim relief, it is appropriate that the City Civil Court decides the Notice of Motion finally rather than determining correctness of the impugned order dated 22 December 2020 at such distant date.

¶14

2 Accordingly Appeal is disposed of by requesting the City Civil Court to decide the Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiff seeking temporary injunction in an expeditious manner, preferably within a period of two months from today. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. Needless to observe that the City Civil Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the order while rejecting the adinterim relief.

¶15

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

¶16

4 In view of disposal of the Appeal, nothing survives in the Interim Application and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶18

2/2

¶19

katkam

Tilakdhari Sitiaprasad Yadav v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilakdhari Sitiaprasad Yadav v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vrushali Mahadev Toraskar and Anr. Vs the Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Kolhapur Vs Dilip Narayan Shukla

Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Kolhapur Vs Satish Keshavrao Kamate

Tilakdhari Sitiaprasad Yadav Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

President Uttar Bharatiya Education Society and Anr. Vs Naresh Tejan Thakur and Anr.

Smt. Janabai Baburao Tupe Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.