Dismissed¶33

Murli Rochaldas Kukreja v. the Mumbai Municipal Corp of Greater Bombay

Bombay HC30 Apr 2025WP/733/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. 733/2025, Bombay High Court (OOCJ), decided 30-04-2025; petitioner Murli Rochaldas Kukreja vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. Keywords: dismissal of writ petition in limine; petitioner's misconduct/threats to own counsel; discharge of advocate and advocate-on-record; advocate protection; Station Diary No.26 of 2025, High Court Police Chowky; P.C. Avinash B. Bajgir; amendment deleting personal names of Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6; inspection of writ premises by Assistant Engineer (Factory & Building) 'S' Ward; report due 14 May 2025; stand over 16 May 2025; Bench: A.S. Gadkari & Kamal Khata, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Leave to amend was granted to delete the personal names of Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 from the array of Respondents, and the amendment was to be carried out forthwith. ¶16

Murli Rochaldas Kukreja vs the Mumbai Municipal Corp of Greater Bombay — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to amend should be granted to delete the personal names of Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 from the array of Respondents. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Leave to amend was granted to delete the personal names of Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 from the array of Respondents, and the amendment was to be carried out forthwith.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Upon Mr. Amol B. Jagtap reporting that the Petitioner had threatened him in the corridors of the Court because he did not argue points that were not part of the Petition, the Court discharged Mr. Amol B. Jagtap and Advocate-on-record Ms. Chandni Sachade from appearing in the Petition.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Court directed P.C. Mr. Avinash B. Bajgir to take the Petitioner to the High Court Police Chowky and caution him; at counsel's request the Court refrained from registering a crime, and the corridor incident was recorded in the Station Diary being No.26 of 2025 dated 30 April 2025.ratio¶25
Taking into consideration the deplorable conduct of the Petitioner (threats to counsel and repeated interruption while the order was being dictated), the Court dismissed the Petition in limine.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Writ Petition No.733 of 2025 (Murli Rochaldas Kukreja vs. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.), Coram A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, JJ., order dated 30 April 2025. During hearing, leave was granted to amend by deleting the personal names of Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6; Respondent No.3 (Assistant Engineer, Factory & Building, 'S' Ward) was to visit the writ premises and file a detailed report on or before 14 May 2025, and the matter stood over to 16 May 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner (Mr. Amol B. Jagtap, with AoR Ms. Chandni Sachade) then reported that the Petitioner had threatened them with dire consequences in the Court corridors for not arguing matters outside the Petition; both were discharged from appearing in the Petition. On counsel's request the Court refrained from directing registration of a crime, but had P.C. Avinash B. Bajgir record the incident in High Court Police Chowky Station Diary No.26 of 2025 dated 30 April 2025 and caution the Petitioner. Noting the Petitioner's continued interruptions and deplorable conduct, the Court dismissed the Petition in limine.

¶1

apn 46-oswp-733-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.733 OF 2025

¶5

Murli Rochaldas Kukreja … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. … Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Amol B. Jagtap, i/b Adv. Chandni Sachade for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar, a/w Adv. S.V. Tondwalkar, i/by Adv. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶9

Mr. Rohit Ghube, Sub. Engg. (B&F), ‘S’ Ward, present.

¶10

Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 & 11.

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 30^th April 2025.

¶12

ASHWINI H GAJAKOSH

¶13

Digitally signed by ASHWINI H GAJAKOSH Date: 2025.05.05 09:07:31 +0530

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

1. Leave to amend to delete the personal names of Respondent

¶16

Nos.3, 5 and 6 from the array of Respondents, granted.

¶17

1.1) Amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶18

1. Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar, learned Advocate appearing for

¶19

Respondent Nos.1 to 6 on instructions submitted that Respondent No.3, the Assistant Engineer (Factory & Building) ‘S’ Ward will visit the writ premises and submit a detailed report to this Court on or before 14^th May, 2025.

¶20

1. Stand over to 16^th May, 2025.

¶21

1. After 10 minutes of dictating the aforenoted Order, Mr. Amol B. Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Petitioner again appeared before this

¶22

1/3

¶23

apn 46-oswp-733-2025.doc

¶24

Court and submitted that, the Petitioner has threatened him with dire consequences in the corridors of the Court, as he had not argued what the Petitioner wanted. He submitted that he did not argue it because that facts was not part of the Petition. Therefore he and Advocate on record Ms. Chandni Sachade seek discharge from the matter. Upon hearing the Advocates grievance and plight, being threatened despite having an Order in favour of the Petitioner, we deem it fit and accordingly discharge the said Advocates from appearing in the Petition.

¶25

At this stage, taking into consideration the threats extended by the Petitioner to the counsel appeared for him and the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we called Mr. Avinash B. Bajgir, P.C. No.093611, who is on duty in the Court precincts, for maintaining peace, to take the Petitioner to the High Court Police Chowky and register a crime against him. However, at the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, we refrained ourselves from doing so. We thereafter directed the P.C. Mr. Avinash B. Bajgir, to take the Petitioner in the Police Chowky of High Court and record the incident that occurred in the corridor of the Court and to caution him about it. As per the information provided by the staff of the Court, Mr. Avinash B. Bajgir, P.C. accordingly has recorded the aforenoted incident in the Station Diary being No.26 of 2025 dated 30^th April, 2025.

¶26

2/3

¶27

apn 46-oswp-733-2025.doc

¶28

1. It be noted here that, when we were passing the present Order,

¶29

the Petitioner continued to interrupt and bicker with the Court and insisted

¶30

that, we record things in this Order, though it were irrelevant.

¶31

Taking into consideration the deplorable conduct of the

¶32

Petitioner, we left with no option but to dismiss the Petition in limine.

¶33

Petition is accordingly dismissed in the aforesaid terms.

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

Murli Rochaldas Kukreja v. the Mumbai Municipal Corp of Greater Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murli Rochaldas Kukreja v. the Mumbai Municipal Corp of Greater Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammed Rashid Ismail Khan vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

The Blood Research Centre vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Vinay G. Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Kannamwar Nagar Nagarpalika Bhadekaru Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Housing and Co-Operation

The Blood Research Centre vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Kartik Satish Jhaveri vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader