Disposed

Ashwin Gada v. M/S. Milan Associates and Others

Bombay HC4 Jun 2024AO/396/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal from order against refusal of interim protection in a suit challenging a municipal notice under Section 268 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act regarding a 40-year-old building with commercial premises. Following a Division Bench ruling, the court vacated any interim protection granted to the appellant and kept all contentions open.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ashwin Gada vs M/S. Milan Associates and Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Diksha Rane 13. ao 396-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.396/2024

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION ST.NO.15489/2024 in APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.396/2024

¶6

ASHWIN GADA ..APPELLANT

¶7

VS.

¶8

M/S. MILAN ASSOCIATES & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Adv. Ram Upadhyay a/w. Adv. Anuj Pande i/b. Law Competere Consultus for appellant.

¶10

Adv. Rahul P. Raut for respondent nos.1 to 5.

¶11

Adv. S. S. Nikam for respondent nos. 6 to 14.

¶12

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶13

DATE : JUNE 4, 2024. (VACATION COURT)

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

1. This appeal from order challenges an order dated 22/5/2024 passed by the trial Court on Exhibit ‘5’ in R.C.S. No.187/2024.

¶16

2. The appellant has filed the suit challenging a notice issued under Section 268 of the Maharashtra Municipal

¶17

¶18

Diksha Rane 13. ao 396-24.doc

¶19

Corporation Act. The trial Court by its order dated 22/5/2024 has refused to grant any interim protection to the appellant. Hence, the present appeal from order is filed by the appellant.

¶20

3. It is an admitted position that the building is more than 40 years old and consists of ground plus three floors. On the ground floor, there are commercial premises. The present appellant is a person to whom the commercial premises belong. There is no dispute that the residential units have already been vacated.

¶21

4. Mr.Nikam appearing for the respondent nos.6 to 14 submits that certain parts of the building has already been demolished including the premises which were belonging to the appellant.

¶22

5. Mr. Upadhyay appearing for the appellant tenders a copy of photographs whereby the parts of commercial premises have been demolished. The photographs are taken on record and for ease of reference the same are reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶23

¶24

Diksha Rane 13. ao 396-24.doc

¶25

¶26

Diksha Rane 13. ao 396-24.doc

¶27

¶28

Diksha Rane 13. ao 396-24.doc

¶29

¶30

Diksha Rane 13. ao 396-24.doc

¶31

¶32

Diksha Rane 13. ao 396-24.doc

¶33

6. The counsels appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 5 and for the respondent nos.6 to 14 have tendered their reply and the copies of the same has also been furnished to Mr. Upadhyay.

¶34

7. Mr.Nikam submits that the developer is also ready to sign PAAA agreement with the appellant on the same condition as it has been done with the residential units and as per the rules prevailed.

¶35

8. Taking into consideration the above facts and the ratio laid down by Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment of Mahendra Shah vs. M.C.G.M. , reported in (2019) 5 Bom CR 451 , it is made clear that interim protection, if any granted to the appellant, is hereby vacated.

¶36

9. Stand over to 11/6/2024 .

¶37

10. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶38

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶39

Ashwin Gada v. M/S. Milan Associates and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ashwin Gada v. M/S. Milan Associates and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Boparais Martial Security Pvt. Ltd. vs Superintendent of Police, on Behalf of Digp/ Controlling Authority and Anr.

Veena Geet Sangeet Sangotri Yamnotri Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Its Secretary vs Division Joint Registrar Co. Operative Societies Mumbai Division and Ors.

Dr. J. J. Magdum Trust Thr. Its Chairman Vijay Jaypal Magdum and Anr. vs Vijay Jaysingrao Khot and Ors.

M/S. World Renewal Spiritual Trust vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

Smt. Sushama a Gupta and Anr. vs Minal Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

Ashwin Gada vs M/S. Milan Associates and Others