Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 1775-2019 in L.C.SU 1998-2019 1 Date : 10.11.2025
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1775 OF 2019
(CNR NO.MHCC01-004935-2019)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1998 OF 2019
M/s. Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd. ] …. Plaintiff
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] …. Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SUBHASH K. KARHALE
C.R.NO..
: 08.
DATE : 10.11.2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Ld. Adv. Hardik Desai for plaintif.
2) Ld. Adv. Namrata Kharat h/f. Adv. Martina Sapkal for defendant
No.1 to 3/State.
3) Ld. Adv. Apurva Dalal for defendant No.4/BMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated in open court)
1. The plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion for grant of permanent
injunction restraining defendant nos. 2 and 3 from executing impugned order
dated 06.04.2019 and 24.04.2019 for removal of the plaintiff’s illuminated
outdoor advertising hoarding alongwith structure described in detail in the
plaint (“suit hoarding” for short).
2. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 and defendant no. 4 have filed their separate
reply and contested the notice of motion.
-- 1 of 5 --
NM 1775-2019 in L.C.SU 1998-2019 2 Date : 10.11.2025
3. Heard Ld. Advocate for plaintiff and defendants.
4. Admittedly, plaintiff had erected the suit hoardings structure and the
illuminated hoarding in the compound of Pleasant Park Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., Pedar Road, Mumbai by obtaining necessary license and NOC
from defendants. However, due to passage of time, there was amendment in
the Policy Guidelines on the grant of permission for display of sky signs and
advertisement, its location, distance etc. Accordingly, the defendant no. 2
served impugned notice dated 06.04.2019 to plaintiff and directed to remove
the suit hoarding as it is situated within 25 meters from the signal. The
plaintiff has submitted its written representation to defendant no. 2. However,
after going through it also the defendant no. 2 has found that the suit
hoarding has violated clause 16(d) of the above referred Policy Guidelines. On
perusal of the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 it is clearly found that the
plaintiff was given the opportunity of hearing and the plaintiff has also filed
its written representation. Therefore, I have not found any substance in the
submission of Ld. Advocate for plaintiff that the opportunity of hearing was
not given to the plaintiff.
5. The defendant no. 2 has issued impugned notice and passed the
impugned orders after making necessary inspection of the suit hoarding and
found that the suit hoarding is within 25 meters from the signal and it has
violated clause 16(d) of the Policy Guidelines.
6. Ld. Advocate for plaintiff has pointed out the map produced on record
by saying that the suit hoarding is situated at the distance of 26 meters from
the signal pole and hence, it has not violated clause 16(d) of Policy
Guidelines. However, even in that map also the another signal pole is near to
the suit hoarding but the plaintiff has not get it measured or the drawer of the
said map has only measured the signal pole which was situated at long
distance from the hoarding pole. The distance of nearest signal pole is not
shown in the said map. Thus, prima facie, the plaintiff has violated clause
16(d) of the Policy Guidelines.
-- 2 of 5 --
NM 1775-2019 in L.C.SU 1998-2019 3 Date : 10.11.2025
7. The Ld. Advocate for plaintiff has pointed out inspection report of suit
hoarding prepared by the Officer of defendant no. 4 in the year 2024 by
saying that the suit hoarding has not violated any Policy Guidelines. However,
defendant no. 4 is the licensing authority. It has no powers about the location
of the suit hoarding. There were no directions to defendant no. 4 by this
Court for carrying the inspection of the suit hoarding and submission of
report. In fact, the impugned orders are passed by defendant no. 2 and hence,
there is no value to the inspection report carried out by defendant no. 4
without any directions and authority.
8. There is no dispute about grant of license of suit hoarding to plaintiff,
but there is dispute about its location. Admittedly, there is no recent
inspection report of defendant no. 2 on record. The impugned notice and
orders are passed by defendant no. 2. On this point, Ld. Advocate on behalf of
defendant no. 1 to 3 rightly relied on following citations :
i) Raj Publicity V/s. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. In Writ
Petition (L) No. 1632 of 2019, wherein it is observed that,
“No reason to interfere in the order of Jt. Commissioner of
Police about removing of the hoardings.”
ii) Ahmed Haji Mohammed Jarrahian V/s. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. wherein it is observed that,
Once we find that the Jt. Commissioner of Police (Traffic)
was acting to subserve larger public interest, then all the
more we are disinclined to entertain this petition. It is
dismissed.
9. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case and
balance of convenience in its favour to protect the suit hoarding.
10. So far as the irreparable loss is concern, once it is prima facie proved
that the suit hoarding has violated clause 16(d) of the Policy Guidelines, it is
for the plaintiff to remove the same and to install it according to law. Hence,
no irreparable loss would cause to the plaintiff.
-- 3 of 5 --
NM 1775-2019 in L.C.SU 1998-2019 4 Date : 10.11.2025
11. The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant no. 4 Municipal
Corporation but it has failed to serve notice U/Sec. 527 of the MMC Act to
defendant no. 4 and hence, the suit and notice of motion are prima facie not
maintainable. Admittedly, this is interim stage but, the plaintiff has claimed
permanent injunction by this notice of motion without adducing evidence and
hence, same can not be granted at interim stage. On this count also, the
notice of motion is liable to be rejected by vacating the ad-interim relief
granted earlier. Hence, the ad-interim relief granted earlier is vacated and
following order is passed :-
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.1775/2019 is hereby rejected
and disposed off accordingly.
Date : 10.11.2025
Place : Mumbai.
(SUBHASH K. KARHALE),
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Greater Mumbai.
Dictated and typed
by Typist on : 10.11.2025.
Signed on : 12.11.2025.
-- 4 of 5 --
NM 1775-2019 in L.C.SU 1998-2019 5 Date : 10.11.2025
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER"
DATE : 12.11.2025, AT 3.45 P.M. MS. V.V. SAWANT
STENOGRAPHER GRADE-I
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court no.) : SHRI SUBHASH K. KARHALE. C.R.NO.08.
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
: 10.11.2025.
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on : 12.11.2025.
Judgment/order uploaded on : 12.11.2025.
-- 5 of 5 --