Jayakumar G. Nadar vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jayakumar G. Nadar vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 2 December 2024 quashed and set aside; Notice of Motion No.930 of 2020 remanded to the Trial Court for hearing and disposal afresh, considering the original Plaintiff/Appellant's submitted documents and, in particular, the sanctioned plan annexed at page 105 of the Appeal paper-book, with a reasoned order to be passed; Appeal from Order disposed of with no order as to costs; ad-interim relief in operation today to continue till final disposal of the Motion and for a period of three weeks thereafter if the outcome is against the original Plaintiff/Appellant; by consent, the newly added Defendant no.2 (not impleaded on 2 December 2024) also to be heard on the Motion, with liberty for Defendant no.2 to file a reply and for the original Plaintiff/Appellant to file a response thereto; all pending Interim Applications in the Motion stand disposed of in terms of this order and all interim orders passed therein stand vacated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing Notice of Motion No.930 of 2020 on the basis that the sanctioned plan attached to the original Plaintiff/Appellant's reply bore no signature or seal of the competent authority, despite the sanctioned plan annexed at page 105 to the paper-book bearing the stamp and seal of the issuing authority, and without considering the submission that the present construction is identical to the construction reflected in that plan.

Court's answer

The sanctioned plan annexed at page 105 to the paper-book bears the stamp and seal of the issuing authority.

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order by not considering the said sanctioned plan.

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 2 December 2024 is quashed and set aside.ratio¶¶26
Notice of Motion No.930 of 2020 is remanded to the Trial Court to be heard and disposed of afresh, considering the documents submitted by the original Plaintiff/Appellant and, in particular, the sanctioned plan annexed at page 105 of the Appeal paper-book, and a reasoned order is to be passed thereon.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Appeal from Order No. 899 of 2024 (with Interim Application No. 15738 of 2024 therein), Farhan P. Dubash, J., order dated 16 March 2026. The appeal challenged the Trial Court's order dated 2 December 2024 dismissing the original Plaintiff/Appellant's (Jayakumar G. Nadar's) Notice of Motion No.930 of 2020 against respondents Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and a newly added Defendant no.2. The Trial Court had proceeded on paragraph nos.6-7 of its order that the sanctioned plan attached to the Plaintiff's reply dated 7 February 2019 (received 8 February 2019, filed through Advocate Mr. Kunal Bhanage) bore no signature or seal of the competent authority, and accordingly considered neither that plan nor the Plaintiff's submission that the present construction is identical to the construction reflected in it. On perusal, the High Court found that the sanctioned plan annexed at page 105 to the paper-book clearly bears the stamp and seal of the issuing authority, and held the Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order without considering it. Operative orders: (1) impugned order dated 2 December 2024 quashed and set aside; (2) Notice of Motion No.930 of 2020 remanded to the Trial Court for afresh disposal considering the Plaintiff's submitted documents, particularly the sanctioned plan at page 105, with a reasoned order; (3) appeal disposed of with no order as to costs; (4) ad-interim relief in operation to continue till final disposal of the Motion and for three weeks thereafter if the outcome is against the Plaintiff/Appellant; (5) by consent, newly added Defendant no.2 (not impleaded on 2 December 2024) also to be heard, with liberty to file a reply and for the Plaintiff/Appellant to respond; (6) pending interim applications disposed of in terms of the order and interim orders therein vacated. No statute or precedent case was cited.