Disposed¶33

Ramprasad Mewalal Gupta and Ors. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Bombay HC13 Jun 2025IA/14132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.351 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888; unauthorised construction and use notice dated 01-03-2024; rejection of interim relief; affidavit-cum-undertaking; basement parking per sanctioned plan; 7th floor lodging user stopped; withdrawal of suit; liberty to BMC to review Item No.1; Gauri Godse J.; AFO 745 of 2024; Bombay High Court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of on the strength of the appellants' undertakings; appellants permitted to withdraw the suit; corporation granted liberty to review Item No. 1 of the schedule and take action in accordance with law, with non-compliance entitling it to implement the impugned notice; Interim Application No. 14132 of 2024 disposed of as infructuous. ¶33

Ramprasad Mewalal Gupta and Ors. vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the original plaintiffs were entitled to interim relief against the corporation's notice dated 1st March 2024 issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, pending the suit. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The assurances and undertakings in the affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 29th July 2025 were accepted as undertakings to the court: removal of the covering described in Item No. 2 within 15 days; keeping the entire basement parking free as per the sanctioned plan and restoring the 1st floor parking to its original position within 45 days (Item No. 4); and stopping the user of lodging on the 7th floor within 15 days (Item No. 3).

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In view of the undertakings, the corporation is permitted to review the allegations in Item No. 1 of the schedule of the impugned notice and, if found necessary, take appropriate action in accordance with law; the appellants would be at liberty to raise their contentions as permissible in law, and the rival contentions on the merits of Item No. 1 are kept open.

¶30

Key takeaways

In view of the undertakings and the liberty granted to the corporation, nothing survives for further consideration in the appeal as well as the suit; the appellants are permitted to withdraw the suit by producing a copy of the order before the trial court.ratio¶31
If the appellants fail to comply with the undertakings recorded in the order within the time granted, the corporation will be at liberty to implement the impugned notice.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Gauri Godse, J.), Appeal From Order No. 745 of 2024, decided 30 July 2025: The appeal by the original plaintiffs challenged rejection of their interim relief application in a suit against a notice dated 1st March 2024 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 alleging unauthorised construction and use. On the appellants' affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 29th July 2025 (taken on record and marked 'X'), the court accepted undertakings to remove the covering in Item No. 2 within 15 days, keep the entire basement parking free as per the sanctioned plan and restore the 1st floor parking within 45 days (Item No. 4), and stop the lodging user on the 7th floor within 15 days (Item No. 3). The corporation was permitted to review the Item No. 1 allegations and act in accordance with law, with the rival contentions on its merits kept open. Nothing surviving, the appellants were permitted to withdraw the suit; failure to comply with the undertakings would entitle the corporation to implement the impugned notice. The appeal was disposed of and Interim Application No. 14132 of 2024 was disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHAVIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date:2025.07.30 19:35:27 +0530

¶2

8-ao-745-2024-ia-14132-2024.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 745 OF 2024 WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14132 OF 2024

¶6

Ramprasad Mewalal Gupta and Ors … Appellants/Applicants

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of Greater … Respondent Bombay

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION(ST) NO. 23333 OF 2025 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 745 OF 2024

¶10

Mr. Aslam Mohammed Idrish … Applicant Mohammed

¶11

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶12

Ramprasad Mewalal Gupta and Ors … Appellants

¶13

vs.

¶14

The Municipal Corporation of Greater … Respondent Bombay

¶15

Mr. Yatin R. Shah for Appellant.

¶16

Shri Akash Singh i/b. Mr. Ajit Singh, for Intervenor. Mr. Om Suryavanshi for Respondent -BMC.

¶17

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶18

DATED : 30^th JULY 2025

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs to challenge

¶21

the rejection of the plaintiffs’ application for interim relief pending the suit. The suit is filed to challenge the notice dated 1^st March 2024

¶22

issued by the corporation under Section 351 of the Mumbai

¶23

Page no. 1 of 3

¶24

8-ao-745-2024-ia-14132-2024.doc

¶25

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Notice contains a schedule regarding the unauthorised construction and use.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants has tendered an additional affidavit-cum-undertaking on behalf of the appellants. The appellants agreed to remove the unauthorised change as described in Item Nos. 2 and 4 of the schedule of the notice. So far as Item No. 2 is concerned, the appellants have agreed to remove the covering as described in Item No. 2, within 15 days from today. So far as Item No. 4 is concerned, the appellants have agreed that they shall keep the entire parking in the basement free as per the sanctioned plan. The appellants have clarified that the parking in the basement is at the times temporarily used, only for playing tennis and badminton. The appellants have agreed to restore the 1^st floor parking to its original position within 45 days. So far as item no. 3 is concerned, the appellants agree to stop the user of lodging on the 7^th floor within 15 days.

¶27

The affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 29^th July 2025 is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification with today’s date. The assurances and undertakings given in the affidavit-cum-undertaking are accepted as undertakings to this court. So far as Item No.1 in the schedule of the notice is concerned, learned counsel for the

¶28

Page no. 2 of 3

¶29

8-ao-745-2024-ia-14132-2024.doc

¶30

corporation on instructions submits that the corporation be granted liberty to review the allegations in Item No. 1, and if found necessary, issue fresh notice in accordance with law. Considering the affidavit-cum-undertaking by the appellants, the corporation is permitted to review the allegations in Item No.1 of the schedule of the impugned notice and if found necessary, are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. In the event, action is taken the appellant would be at liberty to raise their contentions as permissible in law. The rival contentions on merits of Item No.1 of the schedule of the notice are kept open.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid undertaking and the liberty granted to the corporation, nothing survives for further consideration in the appeal as well as the suit. The appellants are therefore permitted to withdraw the suit by producing a copy of this order before the trial court.

¶32

It is clarified that if the appellants fail to comply with the undertakings as recorded in this order within the time granted, the corporation will be at liberty to implement the impugned notice.

¶33

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶34

In view of disposal of the appeal, the interim application is

¶35

disposed of as infructuous.

¶36

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶37

Page no. 3 of 3

Ramprasad Mewalal Gupta and Ors. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramprasad Mewalal Gupta and Ors. v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagwan Pandurang Pawar, vs Jagannath Pandurang Pawar, and Ors.

Vilas Waikar and Others vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Developement Authorit

Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe vs Mahesh Devidas Sathe and Ors.

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner, vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Bapu Gopal Mandekar and Others vs Lt. Maruti Kale Mandekar (Deceased)

Shri. Bapu Gopal Mandekar and Others vs Lt. Maruti Kale Mandekar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs.Lalita Maruti Mandekar and Others