Allowed

Neeraj Gupta v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Office of the Assistant Commissioner and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2024IA/3380/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restored an dismissed writ petition despite a 202-day delay, conditioning restoration on the applicant paying Rs. 1 lakh to the Bombay Bar Association Trust. It directed the removal of objections within three weeks or risk dismissal of the original petition.

What did the court decide?

The application for restoration was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1 lakh costs to the Bombay Bar Association Trust within two weeks.

Neeraj Gupta vs the Municipal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

apn 28-osia-3380-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3380 OF 2024

¶3

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.22366 OF 2023

¶5

Neeraj Gupta

¶6

… Applicant/Petitioner.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

¶9

… Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, i/by Lex Services for the Applicant/Petitioner. Smt. M.M. Dhuri, i/by Smt. Komal Panjabi for the Respondent-BMC. Mr. Kiran Jain, a/w Mrs. Heenal Jain, Mr. Duj Jain and Ms. Krishma Shah, i/by Kiran Jain & Co. for Respondent No.7.

¶11

Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, a/w Adv. N. Ting, Mr. Amrut Joshi and Adv. Yazad Udwadia, i/by Adv. Rajan Yadav for Respondent Nos.8 and 9.

¶12

Mr. Ish Jain, a/w Mr. Aditya Pimple and Mr. Vinayak Siraskar for Respondent No.10.

¶13

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 25^th November 2024.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

1. This is an application for restoration of Writ Petition (L)

¶16

No.22366 of 2023, which was dismissed for non-removal of office

¶17

objections within stipulated period in pursuance of Notice dated 8^th March, 2024.

¶18

1.1) There is a delay of 202 days in preferring the present

¶19

application.

¶20

Mr. Jagtiani learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent

¶21

1/3

¶22

Digitally ASHWINIH signed byASHWINI HGAJAKOSHDate: GAJAKOSH 2024.12.04 14:53:23 +0530

¶23

apn 28-osia-3380-2024.doc

¶24

Nos.8 and 9 drew our attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the application and submitted that no plausible explanation has been offered by the Applicant for condonation of said delay and therefore delay may not be condone.

¶25

Though we were not inclined to accept the explanation offered by the Applicant in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the application, at the profuse request of learned counsel for the Applicant and on his statement that for condonation of said delay, the Applicant will pay a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Bombay Bar Association Trust within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of High Court,

¶26

Bombay. The account details are as under:

¶27

Name of Trust	:	Bombay Bar Association Trust
Bank and Branch	:	Bank of India (Mumbai Main Branch)
Bank Account Number	:	110110012175
Type of Account	:	Saving A/c
IFSC Code	:	BKID0000001

¶28

Subject to pursuant of said cost as noted above the delay is

¶29

condoned and application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶30

Applicant is directed to remove office objections if not removed till date, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of aforenoted costs, failing which the Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.

¶31

2/3

¶32

apn 28-osia-3380-2024.doc

¶33

If the cost is paid within stipulated period as noted above, list

¶34

the Petition on 13^th January, 2025 under the caption “For Admission”.

¶35

(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶36

3/3

Neeraj Gupta v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Office of the Assistant Commissioner and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Gupta v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Office of the Assistant Commissioner and 9 Ors.

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

Janardan Shreeram Jaiswar vs Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Kiran Ramesh Shinde vs State of Maharashtra General Administrative Department and Ors.

Devdas Kerba Chougule vs State of Maharashtra General Administrative Department and Ors.

Sushila Yashawant Bansode vs the State of Maharashtra

Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Revenue

Jyoti Builders vs the Chief Executive Officer, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority