Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 1650-19 in Suit No. 1073-19
CNR NO.MHCC0100450119
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1650 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1073 OF 2019
Mr. Rangbahadur J. Yadav ......Plaintiff
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ..... Defendant
Coram : Sanjay N. Yadav, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 29th August, 2019
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Dubey for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mrs. Smita Tondwalkar for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff by this notice of motion seeks injunction restraining
the defendant corporation from evicting the plaintiff from the Stall at
Lala Nigam Road, Colaba Market, Colaba, Mumbai05, area
admeasuring 3' x 5' sq.ft. without following due process of law.
2. Heard Learned Advocate for the plaintiff, Learned Advocate for
the defendant corporation.
3. The plaintiff claimed hawker and is running business of Stall at
Lala Nigam Road, Colaba Market, Colaba, Mumbai05. It is stated that
-- 1 of 3 --
2 NM 1650-19 in Suit No. 1073-19
the plaintiff had applied for the license and his name is included in the
serve carried out. It is stated that he cannot be evicted from the suit
premises.
The defendant on the other hand concluded that the plaintiff had
no right to carry out the business. It is stated that the action was taken
against the plaintiff on several occasions by evicting him from the
premises. It is stated that the plaintiff has no authorize the hawker.
It is contended that the notice of motions deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Admittedly, the application for license by the plaintiff is pending
with the authority. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not a authorized hawker.
His name may have been included in the list but that does not entitle
him carry out the business without license. The plaintiff alleged that he
is doing business as hawker since 1985. The mere contention does not
create right in plaintiff to carry business without license.
The plaintiff has failed to make out the primafacie case in his
favour. The balance of convenience does not lies in favour of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff would not be put to irreparable loss, if the
temporary injunction is refused.
In the result, following order is passed.
ORDER
The Notice of Motion No. 1650/2019 is dismissed.
(Sanjay N. Yadav)
Judge,
Date : 29.08.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 29.08.2019
Transcribed on : 30.08.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 30.08.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
3 NM 1650-19 in Suit No. 1073-19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 31.08.2019 at 3.32 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. K.S.Bhosale
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. Sanjay N. Yadav
C.R. no. 05
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
29.08.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
30.08.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
31.08.2019
-- 3 of 3 --