Disposed

Mrs. Nargis Afzal Roowala v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Bombay HC14 Feb 2024IA/1608/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal urgent listing due to threatened demolition. Court directed Corporation to file reply in notice of motion before trial court within two weeks. Status quo maintained pending notice of motion disposal.

What did the court decide?

Reply to notice of motion to be filed before trial court within two weeks; status quo maintained till disposal of notice of motion.

Mrs. Nargis Afzal Roowala Vs the Municipal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

SMITAJOHNSONGONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITAJOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2024.02.16 14:35:33+0530

¶2

27.ao133-24.doc

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.133 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1608 OF 2024 IN

¶6

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.133 OF 2024

¶7

Mrs. Nargis Afzal Roowala ...Appellant/Applicant

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Jagdish N. Jayale, a/w. Mr. Jayesh J. Jayale, for the Appellant.

¶11

Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar, for Respondent/BMC.

¶12

CORAM : R.N. LADDHA, J.

¶13

DATE : 14 FEBRUARY 2024

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

. This appeal is listed today in view of the praecipe moved by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on 13 February 2024 for urgent listing on the ground that the respondent Corporation sought to demolish the suit structure.

¶16

Accordingly, at the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

¶17

It remains on record that the respondent Corporation has

¶18

 1 / 2

¶19

27.ao133-24.doc

¶20

¶21

not yet filed reply to the notice of motion. This appeal from order can be disposed of by directing the respondent Corporation to file its reply in the notice of motion before the trial court within two weeks from today with an advance copy to be served on the other side. The rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶22

The trial court is requested to expedite the hearing of the notice of motion and to decide it on its own merits, preferably within four weeks thereafter.

¶23

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are left open.

¶24

Appeal from order disposed of. Parties to maintain statusquo till the disposal of the notice of motion.

¶25

Pending application also disposed of.

¶26

(R.N. LADDHA, J.)

¶27

This order is corrected as per the Speaking to the Minutes dated 16 February 2024.

¶28

 2 / 2

Mrs. Nargis Afzal Roowala v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Nargis Afzal Roowala v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manpreet Kaur Dadyal and Ors. Vs M/S. Indusind Media and Communications Limited and Anr.

Shri M.T. Jadhav (Dead) through U.M.Jadhav and 5 Ors. Vs Shri Vishnu Anandrao Jadhav.

Haribhau Ramchandra Dhamale Vs Pandurang Hanumant Dhamele

Usman Ismail Bagwan Vs Mahiboobi Abbas Shaikh

Shri.Tukaram S. Lole Vs Shri.Vishal v. Paigude

Mahesh Narayan Wagh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.