Disposed

Shaikh Arifahmed Abdulkader v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda)

Bombay HC23 Apr 2024AO/60/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Flat owners in Universal Garden, Jogeshwari, challenged MMRDA notices under Section 55 of the MRTP Act; the trial Court refused ad-interim relief. By consent, appeals were disposed of with directions to decide notice of motions within eight weeks and maintain status quo meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Status quo to be maintained till notice of motions decided; trial Court directed to decide them within eight weeks.

Shaikh Arifahmed Abdulkader Vs Mumbai… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Mamta Kale

¶2

40-ao-46-2024.doc

¶3

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitally signed byMAMTA AMAR KALEDate: 2024.04.2318:57:06 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 46 OF 2024

¶6

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 535 OF 2024 IN

¶7

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 46 OF 2024

¶8

Asma Yakub Gigani ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶9

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 49 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 541 OF 2024 IN

¶10

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 49 OF 2024

¶11

Ramzan Alin Solanki ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶12

WITH

¶13

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 48 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 540 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 48 OF 2024

¶14

Khalqllah Mohammed Munir Khan ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

page 1 of 7

Mamta Kale

40-ao-46-2024.doc

WITH

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 47 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 539 OF 2024

¶20

¶21

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 47 OF 2024

¶22

Mr. Mohammad Naz Rahmani ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶23

WITH

¶24

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 50 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 546 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 50 OF 2024

¶25

Mohammad Pervez ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶26

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 53 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 550 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 53 OF 2024

¶27

Fareed Z. Qureshi ..Appellant Vs.

¶28

Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶29

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 54 OF 2024

page 2 of 7

Mamta Kale

40-ao-46-2024.doc

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 553 OF 2024 IN

¶34

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 54 OF 2024

¶35

Mr. Azizur Rahman Khan ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶36

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 57 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 57 OF 2024

¶37

Munna Noor Mohammad Solanki ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶38

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 51 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 545 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 51 OF 2024

¶39

Ashfaq Abdul Kasu through Authorised Signatory Ismail Kasu ..Appellant Vs.

¶40

Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶41

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 52 OF 2024 WITH

page 3 of 7

Mamta Kale

40-ao-46-2024.doc

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 551 OF 2024 IN

¶46

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 52 OF 2024

¶47

Shakil Ahmed Khan ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶48

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 55 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 552 OF 2024 IN

¶49

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 55 OF 2024

¶50

Naushad Kadar Chilwan ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶51

WITH

¶52

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 56 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 554 OF 2024 IN

¶53

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 56 OF 2024

¶54

Amannullah Ishaq Ghojaria ..Appellant

¶55

Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶56

WITH

¶57

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 60 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 562 OF 2024 IN

page 4 of 7

Mamta Kale

40-ao-46-2024.doc

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 60 OF 2024

¶62

Shaikh Arifahmed Abdulkader ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶63

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 58 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 557 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 58 OF 2024

¶64

Zeenat Hamid Chougle through Amanullah Ishaq Ghojaria ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶65

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 59 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 560 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 59 OF 2024

¶66

Mr. Sohail Raihan ..Appellant Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) ..Respondent

¶67

Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Mohit Khanna a/w. Sherin Baby i/b. Falcon Legal, for the Appellants in all AO’s. Ms. Anjali Helekar a/w. Shalaka More, for the Respondent – MMRDA.

page 5 of 7

Mamta Kale

40-ao-46-2024.doc

CORAM : R. N. LADDHA, J. DATE : 23 APRIL 2024

¶72

P.C.

¶73

. The appellants herein own flats in the building known as ‘Universal Garden’ situated in Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. These appellants challenged the notices issued by the respondent under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, before the learned City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai. They also filed a notice of motions praying for interim reliefs. By the impugned orders, the learned trial Court refused to grant the appellants ad-interim relief. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have approached this Court.

¶74

After hearing the matters for some time, the learned counsel for the parties agreed to maintain status quo till the pending notice of motions are decided by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the parties state that the parties will cooperate with the learned trial Court for the expeditious disposal of the respective notice of motions.

¶75

In view of that, all these appeals stand disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the respective notice of motions pending before it expeditiously and preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Till the decision of the respective notice of motion, the parties shall maintain the status quo.

page 6 of 7

Mamta Kale

40-ao-46-2024.doc

As a sequel, pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶80

R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶81

page 7 of 7

Shaikh Arifahmed Abdulkader v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Arifahmed Abdulkader v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda)

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

M/S. Shivam Constructions and Another Vs Shri. Milind Raghunath Gurav and Others

Aslam Ali Mohammad Hatim Ali Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kailash Keshav Salvi Vs Municipal Officer Ward F/North, Designated Officer/Executive Engineer(B and F) and Anr.

Jagdishprasad Purshottamdas Todi and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Amannullah Ishaq Ghojaria Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda)

Ramzan Alin Solanki Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda)