Dismissed

Madhuri Vijay Chande v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2024IA/635/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim application sought restoration of a writ petition dismissed for default. The court rejected the plea, stating the applicant was not vigilant enough in prosecuting the matter and noting that dismissing applications easily would allow municipal actions to be continuously defeated.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the interim application for restoration of the writ petition.

Madhuri Vijay Chande Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

906-OSIWP-635-2024.DOC

¶2

Sumedh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2024

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 318 OF 2017

¶6

Madhuri Vijay Chande ...Applicant In the matter between Madhuri Vijay Chande …Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors …Respondents

¶7

Mr Sushant D Chavan , for the Applicant. Mr Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate , i/b Ritesh Singh, for Respondent No 5.

¶8

Mr Kunal Waghmare , for the Respondent-MCGM.

¶9

CORAM G.S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ. DATED: 8th March 2024

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1. The Interim Application (“ IA ”) seeks restoration of the Writ Petition that was rejected on 13th March 2023. The dismissal was for default and for want of prosecution.

¶12

SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE

¶13

2. The reason given for seeking restoration is the same as in IA No 632 of 2024 namely that the Advocate of the Petitioner did not have the necessary entry in his personal diary and on that day only one of the matters was listed.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Date: 2024.03.11 10:56:47 +0530

¶15

Page 1 of 2 8th March 2024

¶16

906-OSIWP-635-2024.DOC

¶17

3. But if the matter is listed on board and the appearance of the Advocate is shown (and there is no complaint in this regard), it is the duty of the Advocate to check from the board and not rely only on some diary.

¶18

4. Even if the law is that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of the advocate, this does not mean that a litigant should not be vigilant and diligent in prosecuting her or his case. Here too, as in the other case, the answer is that the Applicant learnt of the order of dismissal only on 5th February 2024 when the Applicant visited the premises of the 5th Respondent and found that the shutter of the garage had been damaged. But this does not tell us when that damage or the demolition or removal was done and why the Petitioner waited until 5th February 2024 to try and carry out these repairs. There is not a word of explanation in this regard.

¶19

5. Municipal actions against structures cannot continuously be defeated like this.

¶20

6. There is no substance in the IA.

¶21

7. The IA is rejected.

¶22

(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

8th March 2024

Madhuri Vijay Chande v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri Vijay Chande v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nish Developers P Ltd. Vs Nareshkumar Shantilal Jain and Ors.

Vishnu Hariba Dhavle and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Dept. of Housing and Ors.

Yasin Esmail Gulam Hussain Esmail Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Himaanshu Vijay Chande Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through the Municipal Commissioner

Shanti Dharma Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra

Harsha K. Shah Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.