Final Order 2

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 1659-18 in Suit No.1141-17
CNR NO.MHCC01-005462-2018
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1659 OF 2018
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1141 OF 2017
Azad Hind Gold Smith Welfare
Association & 45 Ors. .…..Plaintiffs
Versus
Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai ..... Defendants
Coram : Sanjay N. Yadav, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 05th March, 2020.
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. V.K. Gupta for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mrs. Rawade for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff by this notice of motion seeks injunction restraining
the defendant corporation from demolishing air flow plastic pipes and
seizing their instruments, articles from their premises and from
obstructing their business activity.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the plaintiff and learned Advocate for
the defendant Corporation.
3. Perused the documents on record.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 1659-18 in Suit No.1141-17
4. It is stated by the Advocate for plaintiff that the notice of the
defendant corporation is causing hazard to the businesses.
5. The defendant corporation submitted that the dispute relates to
unauthorized chimneys raised in that area, causing health hazard.
In the order dated 25.10.2002 in Writ Petition No. 2678/2001,
the defendant was directed to give personal hearing to the concerned
and to pass orders. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn.
6. The plaint shows the suit is filed by the association and is signed
by one of the plaintiffs. The registration certificate of the plaintiff is
not produced on record to show the registration of the association.
There is nothing to infer that as to whether the plaintiff is a registered
society or not. The plaintiff in the suit apprehends that the air flow
pipes and articles would be seized. The suit is for simplicitory
injunction. The cause of action is based on mere apprehensions. There
is no specific cause of action pointing out date of incidents to show the
overtact on the part of defendant or its officers. The plaintiff had not
claimed any substantial relief. The suit is for simplicitory injunction.
There is no evidence pointing out that the defendants have threatened
to remove the pipes or to seized the articles. The decision given in the
Writ Petition No. 2496/2004 dated 30.09.2004 by the Hon’ble High
Court governs the actions on the defendant.
The plaintiff has failed to make out the prima-facie 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
injunction is refused.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 1659-18 in Suit No.1141-17
In the result, following order is passed.
ORDER
The Notice of Motion No. 1595/2018 is dismissed.
(Sanjay N. Yadav)
Judge,
Date : 05.03.2020 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 05.03.2020
Transcribed on : 09.03.2020
Signed by HHJ on : 14.03.2020
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 1659-18 in Suit No.1141-17
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 16.03.2020 at 11.22 a.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
05.03.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
14.03.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 16.03.2020
-- 4 of 4 --