Shree Kutchhi Bhanushali Seva Samaj Trust Thr. Its Trustee Dinesh Chandra vs Ram Suresh Sevla Prasad Yadav — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shree Kutchhi Bhanushali Seva Samaj Trust Thr. Its Trustee Dinesh Chandra vs Ram Suresh Sevla Prasad Yadav — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal from Order disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits, with both Interim Applications also disposed. Relief/directions: (i) Trial Court to decide the pending Notice of Motion within four weeks by a reasoned speaking order considering the Plaintiff, the Corporation and the landowner-intervener; (ii) Trial Court not to be influenced by observations in the impugned order; (iii) no coercive steps against the Appellant's structure in the meantime and for one week after any adverse final order in the Notice of Motion; (iv) leave to file rejoinder to the Plaintiff.

Issue for consideration

Whether the ad-interim order passed by the learned Trial Court pursuant to the show-cause notice issued and the speaking order passed by the Designated Officer of the Corporation should be interfered with in this Appeal from Order. +2 more

Court's answer

Since the impugned order is an ad-interim order and the Notice of Motion is pending final hearing, the learned Trial Court is directed to determine the Notice of Motion and pass an appropriate reasoned speaking order after considering the case of the Plaintiff and the Corporation, and to do so expeditiously and in any event within four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order when determining the Notice of Motion.

Key takeaways

As a prima facie observation (merits expressly left open), the material produced by the Appellant - original Plaintiff is required to be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.obiter¶18
While deciding the Notice of Motion, the learned Trial Court shall also hear the landowner who has filed a Chamber Summons seeking intervention in the Suit.ratio¶18
Interim protection: no coercive steps shall be taken against the structure of the Appellant in the meantime, and for a period of one week after passing of the final order in the Notice of Motion if that order is adverse to the Plaintiff.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) — Appeal from Order No. 16 of 2026 (with I.A. Nos. 140 and 138 of 2026), decided by Milind N. Jadhav, J. on 17 January 2026: The appellant (original plaintiff in a suit) challenged an ad-interim order of the Trial Court passed pursuant to a show-cause notice issued and a speaking order passed by the Designated Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court disposed of the Appeal, directing the Trial Court to determine the pending Notice of Motion expeditiously and in any event within four weeks, by an appropriate reasoned speaking order after considering the case of the Plaintiff and the Corporation, and also to hear the landowner who had filed a Chamber Summons seeking intervention in the Suit. The Trial Court was directed not to be influenced by any observations in the impugned order. Interim protection was granted: no coercive steps against the appellant's structure in the meantime and for one week after the final order in the Notice of Motion if adverse to the Plaintiff. Leave to file rejoinder was granted to the Plaintiff to the Corporation's affidavit in reply.

15. AO-16-2026.odt

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 16 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 140 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2026

Ram Suresh Sevla Prasad Yadav Versus

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr.

.. Appellant

.. Respondents

Mr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Rajkumar Awasthi i/by Mr. Manish Tomar, Advocates for Appellant

Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocates for Respondents

Mr. Pradip Thorat a/w Mr. Aniesh Jadhav, Mr. Karan Gajra, Mr. Avinash Bailmare a/w Mr. Shubham B.Choudhar i/by Mr. Nikhil Adkine, Advocates for Intervener

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JANUARY 17, 2026

P. C.:

1. Heard Mr. Chandrachud, learned Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondents - Corporation and Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Intervener. It is mentioned at the time of discharging the Board due to apprehension expressed by the Appellant. Mr. Thorat has appeared after the order is dictated in Court on behalf of the intervener - landowner. I have also heard him on his objections.

1 of 3

15. AO-16-2026.odt

2. Challenge in the present Appeal from Order (AO) is to the adinterim order passed by the learned Trial Court pursuant to the issuance of show-cause-notice and speaking order passed by the Designated Officer of the Corporation. Suit proceeding has been filed. It is prima facie seen that the material which is produced by Appellant - Org. Plaintiff is required to be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Considering that impugned order is an adinterim order and Notice of Motion is pending final hearing, the learned Trial Court is directed to determine the Notice of Motion and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order after considering the case of Plaintiff and Corporation. Learned Trial Court shall also hear the landowner who has filed Chamber Summons seeking intervention in the Suit while deciding the Notice of Motion. Learned Trial Court is directed to decide the Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from today. Leave to file rejoinder is granted to the Plaintiff to the affidavit in reply of the Corporation.

Learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order and accordingly determine the same.

In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the structure of the Appellant and further for a period of one week after

2 of 3

15. AO-16-2026.odt

passing of the final order in the Notice of Motion if the said order is adverse to the Plaintiff.

Without expressing any opinion on merits, present Appeal from Order stands disposed of in the above terms. Both Interim Applications are also disposed.

Amberkar

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRAMOHANAMBERKAR MOHANAMBERKARDate:2026.01.17 16:33:53 +0530

3 of 3