The Bombay High Court disposed of an appeal by directing the trial court to expedite the hearing of a notice of motion within four weeks and maintain the status quo until its decision.
Trial court directed to decide the notice of motion within four weeks and maintain status quo.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.03.19 Chitra Sonawane. 12:31:12 1 60-AO-239-2024.doc +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appeal from Order No.239 of 2024
a/w
Interim Application No.6885 of 2024 in
Appeal from Order No.239 of 2024
Mohammed @ Sahajada Salim Mohammed Abdul Aziz Shaikh
Mohammed Abdul Aziz Shaikh .… Appellant. Vs. MCGM & Anr. .... Respondents.
Mr JP Mishra a/w Jitendra Shukla for appellant. Ms Smita V. Tondwalkar for respondent/MMC.
Coram : R. N. Laddha, J. Date : 18 March 2024.
P.C. :
This appeal is listed today on account of a praceipe moved by the learned Counsel for the appellant for urgent listing, on the ground that respondent/corporation sought to take action of demolition of the suit premises. Accordingly, as per the request of learned Counsel for the appellant, and in view of the proposed demolition, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
Chitra Sonawane. 2 60-AO-239-2024.doc
the appellant has received notice dated 22.12.2023 from the respondent-corporation u/s 351 of the MMC Act, 1988 (for short,'the Act'). The appellant replied the notice but the corporation did not consider it, nor the documents placed on record, in its proper perspective. On 02.02.2024, the corporation issued an order of demolition. The learned trial court, however, refused ad-interim relief without taking into consideration all these aspects.
Chitra Sonawane. 3 60-AO-239-2024.doc
order. Till then, the parties to maintain the staus-quo.
[ R. N. Laddha, J. ]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should expedite the hearing of a notice of motion challenging an order of demolition and decide it within four weeks.
Whether the parties should maintain the status quo pending the hearing.
Whether the present appeal should be disposed of on the basis of the request to expedite the notice of motion.
Mohammed Abdul Aziz Shaikh
MCGM and others
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
