Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Draft NM L.C. Stamp No.4599/2020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
L.C. STAMP NO. 4599 OF 2020
Paresh Tulsidas Vora & Ors. ...Plaintiffs
Vs.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
& Ors. ...Defendants
APPEARANCE :-
Ld. Adv. Dalal for the plaintiffs.
Ld. Adv. Dipali Patil for the defendants/MCGM.
CORAM : HER HONOUR AD-HOC JUDGE
SMT. C. P. JAIN (C.R.NO.06)
DATED : 25th SEPTEMBER, 2020.
O R D E R
Plaintiffs have taken out this draft notice of motion to
restrain defendants from taking any action in pursuance of the
impugned notice dated 08.09.2020 issued without following due
process of law.
2. According to plaintiffs, their father had erected suit
hoardings after obtaining requisite permissions and licenses from
MCGM. Plaintiffs are regularly paying to defendants the property taxes
and the advertisement license fees. Suddenly, on 08.09.2020 they have
received the impugned letters dated 08.09.2020 (four in number).
Earlier neither they were called upon to file their reply nor by these
letters they are called upon to file their reply. Due procedure is not
-- 1 of 4 --
Draft NM ..2 .. L.C. Stamp No.4599/2020
followed. Principles of natural justice are not followed. Therefore, they
had moved this notice of motion.
3 Learned advocate for defendants has orally denied
everything.
4. I have gone through the pleadings, documents and given
consideration to arguments of both the Ld. Advocates. There is nothing
on record that defendants had earlier issued any letter to plaintiffs
calling upon their reply for removing their suit hoardings. It is
undisputed fact on record that the suit hoardings of plaintiffs are legal
and erected after obtaining requisite permissions and licenses. The
impugned letters dated 08.09.2020 is having recitals of removing the
suit hoardings by MCGM. Defendants have not filed on record anything
to show that plaintiffs were heard before issuing letters dated
08.09.2020. Therefore, the arguments of learned advocate of plaintiff
that principles of natural justice is violated has merits. Plaintiffs needs
to be given opportunity to file their reply before defendants and the
matter be decided on merits.
5. In light of aforesaid position, it will be appropriate to
dispose of the notice of motion by giving directions to defendants to
pass order after considering the reply of plaintiffs and the documents
tendered by plaintiffs if any. Therefore, in interest of justice and both
the parties, I proceed to pass following order -
ORDER
1. Plaintiffs shall file reply within 14 days from today before
defendants and thereafter defendants after considering the reply
of plaintiffs shall pass order.
-- 2 of 4 --
Draft NM ..3 .. L.C. Stamp No.4599/2020
2. Till then and in case of adverse order if any, two weeks
thereafter, defendants are directed not to take any coercive
action in respect of the suit hoardings.
3. In view of the above directions, Draft Notice of Motion is
disposed of.
4. Draft Notice of Motion be registered for statistical purposes.
(C.P. Jain)
Ad-hoc Judge, (C.R.No.06)
Date : 25.09.2020 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on computer :25.09.2020.
checked on :25.09.2020.
Signed on :25.09.2020.
-- 3 of 4 --
Draft NM ..4 .. L.C. Stamp No.4599/2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 24.12.2020, 11.13 am.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mr. Harshal D. Jagtap
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Smt. C.P. Jain
C.R. No.06
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
25.09.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
25.09.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 24.12.2020
-- 4 of 4 --