Pradeep Narayan Deshpande v. Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2024WP/14058/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sought ad-interim restraint against the respondent's proposed compound wall construction, claiming it would block access used for his fertilizer business. Both courts below refused interim relief; appellate court briefly ordered status quo. The High Court declined ad-interim relief citing an alternate road and issued notice before admission.

What did the court decide?

Notice before admission issued returnable on 12 November 2024; construction to be subject to outcome of writ petition; ad-interim relief declined.

Pradeep Narayan Deshpande vs Divisional Controller… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

LSP 1 16wp 14058.24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Writ Petition No.14058 of 2024

¶4

Pradeep Narayan Deshpande … Petitioner. V/s. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport … Corporation Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Balasaheb G. Ligade Advocate for the Petitioner

¶6

CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J

¶7

DATE : 14 October 2024.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner-Plaintiff.

¶10

Initially, ad-interim relief was granted on 19 December 2023, however, finally that application was rejected on 12 July 2024 when the appeal was filed. This order was confirmed on 10 September 2024 (Page-153), however, the appellate Court as per the subsequent order of the same date, granted status-quo of the earlier order by four weeks.

¶11

My attention is invited to the photographs on Page Nos.60, 61,66 and 67. The contention of the Petitioner is that defendantrespondent was about to construct the compound wall. Even his

¶12

LSP 2 16wp 14058.24.doc

¶13

business of selling of fertilizers will be hampered because if he is using the area of land described on Page No.66 for moving of vehicles and fertilizers are stored in a godown shown on Page-67.

¶14

Both the courts below have not considered the plan on Page-61 because it was drawn by a private person. Even though the appellate court after dismissing the Misc. Civil Appeal has granted status-quo for four weeks. In fact, by giving certain observations, the order of the trial Court is confirmed. This Court feels that there can either be status-quo or interim injunction only when case is made out.

¶15

At this juncture, I am not inclined to grant ad-interim relief because in Para 9 the first appellate court has observed that there is alternate road available to the plaintiff (Page 151). At the most it can be said that if the defendant will go on with any construction, it will be subject to outcome of this writ petition.

¶16

Hence, issue notice before admission to respondents returnable on 12 November 2024 . Private notice is permitted. Service affidavit be filed.

¶17

(S.M. MODAK, J.)

Pradeep Narayan Deshpande v. Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Narayan Deshpande v. Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Yeshwant Laxman Sutar (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs) Thrgh Poa Chayya Prabhakar Chikode vs Shri Prabhakar Murlidhar Sutar and Ors.

Vinayak Arjun Parab and Ors. vs Arjun Laxman Parab

Shri Gadge Maharaj Maratha Dharmshala Trustees Babam Gangadhar Kolse Patil and Ors. vs Purshottam Manohar Paraswar and Anr.

Balu Nivrutti Mohite vs Anna Bhau Suryawanshi (Surve) Since Deceased through Legal Representatives

Krushna Dhondu Dhanawade Dead through His Legal Heirs vs Damodar Rama Umasare Dead through His Legal Heirs

1.INDUBAI Govind Padwal Since Deceased through Her Legal Heris Defendant NOS.2 to 4 and Others vs Akkatai Parshram Padwal