Allowed

Manali Sharad Shinde v. the Assistant Engineer (Inspection and Maintenance Mcgm

Bombay HC11 Nov 2024IA/14467/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged the rejection of ad-interim relief in a suit disputing a notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The Court held that pending eligibility verification required remanding the issue to the Trial Court while continuing interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent directed to submit outcome on affidavit; Trial Court to decide motion on merits; interim protection continued.

Manali Sharad Shinde vs the Assistant Engineer… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by ANANT ANANT KRISHNA KRISHNA NAIK NAIK Date: 2024.11.26 11:58:12 +0530

¶2

14.AO.774.2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 774 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14467 OF 2024 IN

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 774 OF 2024

¶6

Manali Sharad Shinde

¶7

...Appellant/Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Assistant Engineer (Inspection and Maintenance), Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ...Respondent

¶10

****

¶11

Mr. S. S. Redkar i/b Mr. Swapnil S. Narkar for the Appellant. Mr. R. Y. Sirsikar for the Respondent-Corporation. Mr. Asaram Aduskar, Colony Officer, F/South Ward present.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

¶14

DATED : 25^th NOVEMBER 2024

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff and learned Counsel for the Respondent – Municipal Corporation.

¶17

This Appeal is filed challenging the rejection of the ad-interim relief under order dated 18/10/2024 passed by Judge, Civil Court, Greater Mumbai in the Draft Motion in L.C. Suit No. 6381 of 2024. The suit is filed challenging the impugned notice dated 15/10/2024 issued by the Respondent-Corporation u/s. 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

1/3

akn

14.AO.774.2024.doc

Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited this Court’s attention to the concerned Annexure II (page 26 dated 07.10.2024) indicating that reason stated for the ineligibility of the Appellant is ‘Survey Slip verification is pending’.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, on instruction from the concerned officer present in the Court, submits that the RespondentMunicipal Corporation is in the process of preparing supplementary Annexure II.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that therefore there is possibility that the Appellant’s case may be considered and he may be held eligible and in such circumstances, if the impugned notice is given effect, the whole suit will become infructuous.

¶24

It must be noted that if the supplementary Annexure II is under preparation, the eligibility or otherwise of the Appellant will come on record after the impugned order. Therefore it can not be considered for the first time by this Court, when the suit is at the stage of the ad-interim relief and it will have to be considered in the pending motion after due opportunity to both sides.

¶25

It appears from record that on the date of the impugned order, the Respondent-Corporation was directed not to take coercive action based on the impugned notice for a period of 3 weeks and this protection was extended by this Court by order dated 11/11/2024. It is not disputed that as on today, the Appellant’s structure is not demolished.

2/3

akn

14.AO.774.2024.doc

In that view of the matter the Appeal is disposed of by passing the following order.

¶30

(a) The impugned order is set aside.

¶31

(b) The Respondent-Corporation is directed to submit on affidavit, the outcome about the Appellant’s eligibility after the supplementary Annexure II is prepared.

¶32

(c) Thereafter, The Trial Court will decide the motion on its own merits considering the supplementary Annexure II that will be submitted by the Respondent-Corporation. Rival contentions are kept open.

¶33

(d) Till the motion is so heard on merits, the interim protection recorded earlier shall continue.

¶34

The Appeal from Order and the Interim Application are disposed of in above terms.

¶35

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶36

3/3

¶37

akn

Manali Sharad Shinde v. the Assistant Engineer (Inspection and Maintenance Mcgm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manali Sharad Shinde v. the Assistant Engineer (Inspection and Maintenance Mcgm

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr. Jaimin Shailesh Shroff vs Mr. Sukesh Arvind Shastri and Others

Mr. Jaimin Shailesh Shroff vs Mr. Sukesh Arvind Shastri and Others

Prasiddh Narayan Dubey vs Union of India and Anr.

Dastagir Mubarak Fakir vs Taher Abdul Jamadar Since Deceased through Lrs

1. Vijay Ganesh Uttekar vs 1. Sunanda Bajirao Bhosale

Homi Framroze Mehta and Ors. vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.