Date: 31-05-2018
Business: Mentioned by pracipee.
Adv. Kudalkar for plaintiff tendered draft NM along with affidavit seeking ad-interim relief for restraining the defendants from demolishing/removing/pulling down any portion of the suit premises pursuant to notice dated 05.05.2018. Leave to register is granted. Adv. Chandramore, D ward for MCGM are present.
Plaint.
Vakalatnama.
Address Memo.
List of documents.
Affidavit in support of plaint.
Heard, respective advocates. Ld. Adv. For plaintiff submits that earlier notice dtd. 24.02.2018, was issued by the defendant directing the plaintiff to shift the kitchen activities from mezzanine floor to ground floor within seven days or to face an action. The plaintiff replied the same on 28.02.2018. However, no order was passed. Therefore the plaintiff instituted the suit and took out NM earlier. It appears from the record that an ad-interim relief in the said NM was refused by the ld. Predecessor (Vacation Court ) on 08.05.2018.
Ld. Adv. for plaintiff submits that on 05.05.2018, the defendant issued another notice to show cause as to why the license should not be revoked. The plaintiff replied the said notice on 11.05.2018. However, without considering the said reply and passing reasoned order, the defendant is threatening to shut down the activity and demolish the suit premises etc.
According to the ld. Adv. for plaintiff the fire officer has consistently certified that there is no fire hazard due to the kitchen activity. In addition to that the plaintiff has installed only oven at the ground floor of the suit premises. However, the defendant is treating the same as mezzanine floor, without considering the position of structure of suit premises relating to the topographical slanting area. According to him there is a ground floor and a lower ground floor. No mezzanine floor exists at the suit premises.
On the other hand the ld. Adv. for the defendant submits that earlier by order dated 08.05.2018, ad-interim relief of similar nature pertaining to notice dated 24.02.2018, was refused. The plaintiff did not prefer an appeal challenging the said order.
She further submits that the defendant considered the reply dated 24.02.2018 and 10.05.2018 and the same being not acceptable passed an order dated 30.05.2018 and thereby revoked health license. She tendered copy of that order dated 30.05.2018, across the bar, which prima facie shows that the health license was revoked with a direction to submit the original health license and close the trade activity immediately falling which necessary legal action and seizure action will be initiated.
In reply the ld. Adv. for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff a senior citizen, is running the same business for more than 25 years and the action has been initiated at the complaint of her son. According to him the plaintiff will suffer great heart ship if the trade activity is shut down by the defendant. He further submits that the order dated 30.05.2018, is not yet served on the plaintiff.
Considering the rival submissions and copies of documents, photographs placed on record the position of the suit premises whether it consist ground floor and lower ground floor or a mezzanine floor and ground floor is required to be decided on merits. However, the defendant has already passed an order dated 30.05.2018, in pursuance to the show cause notice dtd 05.05.2018. The plaintiff has not challenged that order yet. In the circumstances it is not expedient to grant any ad-interim relief. The plaintiff may take necessary legal reports permissible under law in respect of the said order dtd. 30.05.2018. Therefore the following order is passed -
1. Ad-interim relief is rejected.
2. An ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Sheristedar of this Court be supplied to both the parties.
Adjd. for reply of defendant to both the NM to 06.06.2018.
Next Purpose: REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2018
Date: 06-06-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Kudalkar For plaintiff and Adv. Chandramore for defendant are present.
Adv. Kudalkar tendered a registered NM 2056 of 2018 and NM no. 2016 of 2018. Adv. Chandramore submitted affidavit in reply to said NM . Order R and R
Adv. Kudalkar tendered copy of draft Chamber summons with affidavit for amendment of the plaint. Leave to registered is granted.
Adv. Kudalkar further tendered draft NM with affidavit seeking ad-interim relief that the defendant be restrained from revoking license in respect of the trade pursuant to notice dated 30.05.2018. Leave to registered is granted.
Earlier by order dated 31.05.2018 ad-interim relief in respect of NM no. 2056 of 2018 was rejected. However considering the affidavit in support of the notice of motion tendered today, it is directed that no coercive action should be taken against the plaintiff till 08.06.2018. Adjd for ad-interim orders on draft NM tendered today. An ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by sheristedar of this court be supplied to both the parties. Adjd. for ad-interim order on 08.06.2018
Next Purpose: AD-INTERIM ORDER
Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2018
Date: 08-06-2018
Business: Resumed.
Son of plaintiff and Adv. Chandramore for defendant are present.
The P.O. is busy in hearing of NM No. 4447 of 2013 in Suit No. 4668/2013, NM No. 664/2017 in Suit No.335/2017 and other civil matter for want of time the board is discharged.
Earlier order if any to continue till the next date.
Adjd for ad-interim order to 11.06.2018.
Next Purpose: AD-INTERIM ORDER
Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2018
Date: 11-06-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Kudalkar for plaintiff and Adv. Chandramore for MCGM are present.
I have already heard, both the advocates on the draft NM taken out by plaintiff on 06.06.2018. The matter was adjourned for orders on draft NM to 08.06.2018. As the P.O. was busy in other civil matters the matter was adjourned for orders today.
Earlier by notice dtd. 24.02.2018 the plaintiff was directed by the defendant to shift kitchen from mezzanine floor to ground floor, being fire hazard, after conducting joint inspection by medical officer health, station officer fire and junior engineer of concern ward. The plaintiff replied and thereafter filed this suit and took out NM No. 2056 of 2018, seeking ad-interim relief that the defendant be restrained from demolishing the suit premises. On 08.05.2018, the ld. Judge, of in charge court rejected ad-interim relief.
In the meantime the defendant issued show cause notice dtd. 05.05.2018 to the plaintiff as to why the trade license should not be revoked, and the plaintiff did not shift the kitchen from mezzanine floor to ground floor. The plaintiff took out another NM No. 2016 of 2018 for restraining the defendant from demolishing the suit premises. On 31.05.2018, relief of ad-interim injunction was rejected as order revoking the trade license was passed by the defendant already on 30.05.2018.
On this background, the plaintiff took out another notice of motion for restraining the defendant from revoking the trade license pursuant to the notice dated 30.05.2018, which was tendered by medical officer health to the plaintiff in the court. Upon hearing both the ld. Advocates and perusing the copies of documents as well as the said notice dtd. 30.05.2018, it prima facie appears that it is not a notice. It is an order whereby the defendant revoked plaintiff\''s health /trade license no. 761414652 which was issued under section 394 of MMC Act, with a direction to submit copy of original health license with the defendant or to face an action for seizure etc.
Considering the nature of that order, post facto intervention of this court at this stage is not warranted therefore ad-interim relief is rejected.
The ld. Advocate for defendant filed reply to the Ch/s.
Heard, respective advocates. Perused the text of proposed amendment and reply filed by defendant. The proposed amendment is in respect of the facts which took place after the date of suit. The plaintiff is seeking declaration and injunction by amending the suit. Therefore, the nature of the suit will not be changed, if amendment is allowed. The amendment has been proposed diligently. It is necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties. Therefore, the following order is passed-
ORDER
1. The draft Ch/s. is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with direction to comply with the order on or before 25.6.2018 in all respect.
2. The formality of registration of Ch/s. be comply with.
Exh.6- Application for continuing the order dated 6.6.2018.
Heard respective advocates. It is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that the plaintiff wishes to prefer an appeal against the orders rejecting the ad-interim relief. The application is strongly objected by ld. Advocate for defendant on the ground that the ad-interim reliefs are rejected on merits. Earlier by order dated 6.6.2018 it was directed that no coercive action should be taken against the plaintiff. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs and in order to facilitated the plaintiff to prefer an appeal, it is directed that no coercive action should taken against the plaintiff till 25.6.2018. This order will not be extended on any count further.
An ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court be supplied to both the parties. Adjd. for compliance to 25.6.2018.
Next Purpose: COMPLIANCE
Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2018
Date: 25-06-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Vaibhavi Pawar for Plaintiff tender registered NM No. 2160/2018 and Ch/s No. 926/2018. She seeks time to comply with the order dtd. 11.06.2018 passed on draft Ch/s. Granted as last chance.
Adv. Pawar tender fresh draft Ch/s seeking amendment to the plaint. She undertakes to supply copies to defendant. Leave to register is granted.
Adv. Patil holding for Adv. Chandramore for MCGM seeks time to file reply.
Adjd for Ch/s reply to 25.07.2018.
Next Purpose: C/S REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2018
Date: 25-07-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Kudalkar for plaintiff and Adv. Chandramore for MCGM are present.
Adv. Kudalkar submits that Ch/s No. 926/2018 which was tendered in the court on 11.06.2018 was already made absolute and the same is required to be complied with by carrying out necessary amendment in the plaint. However, the Ch/s No. 1085/2018 which was taken out on 06.06.2018, is not yet decided for want of reply of defendant corporation. According to him the concerned registrar is reluctant to allow the plaintiff to carry out the amendment in paragraph no. 15 by inserting paragraph no. 15 (c) and 15 (d) on the count that the amendment proposed in Ch/s no. 1085/2018 (paragraph no. 15 (a) and (b)) is not yet allowed. Be that as it may Adv. Chandramore seeks time to file reply to Ch/s no. 1085/2018. Time is granted till 30.07.2018. Till decision of Ch/s no. 1085/2018 the compliance of order passed on Ch/s No. 926/2018 is kept in abeyance.
Earlier order if any to continue till the next date.
Adjd for reply and arguments on Ch/s No. 1085/2018 to 30.07.2018
Next Purpose: C/S REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2018
Date: 30-07-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Sandip Singh for plaintiff filed Ch/s No. 1305/2018. TOR.
The P.O. is busy in recording evidence in Sessions Case No. 421/2016 and orders on NM No. 3348/2017 NM No. 3349/2017, 3350/2017 and NM No. 4374/2015 in Suit No. 2894/2008. For want of time the board is discharged.
Adjd for Ch/s reply to 08.08.2018.
Next Purpose: C/S REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2018
Date: 08-08-2018
Business: Resumed.
The P.O. is on leave.
Adjd for C/S reply to 31.08.2018.
Next Purpose: C/S REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2018
Date: 31-08-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Vaibhavi Pawar for plaintiff, Adv.Sandip Singh For applicant in Ch/s and Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM are present.
Adv. Pawar seeks time to reply to Ch/s 1305/2018. Adv. Patil seeks time to file reply to Ch/s 1085/2018.
Adjd for Ch/s reply to 08.10.2018.
Next Purpose: C/S REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2018
Date: 05-10-2018
Business: Mentioned by pracipe. NOB. TOB.
C.A. of Plaintiff with Adv. Kudalkar and Adv. Ms. Patil for MCGM are present.
Exh. 6- Application for unconditional withdrawal of the suit. The defendant submitted to the orders of this Court.
Order on Exh. 6
Mr. Rajesh Rajaram Singh, the C.A. of plaintiff is present before the Court, he is identified by Adv. Kudalkar. The copy of power of attorney at clause no. 4 shows that the C.A. is authorized to withdraw the suit. The plaintiff wishes to withdraw the suit unconditionally. Accordingly permission is granted to withdraw the suit unconditionally. Original deed of power of attorney is returned.
Order on Exh. 1
In view of withdrawal of the suit unconditionally, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. Court fee be refunded to the plaintiff as per rules.
Order on NM No. 2056/2018
In view of withdrawal of the suit the NM No. 2056/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order on NM No. 2160/2018
In view of withdrawal of the suit the NM No. 2160/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order on Ch/s No. 1305/2018
In view of withdrawal of the suit the Ch/s No. 1305/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order on Ch/s No. 1085/2018
In view of withdrawal of the suit the Ch/s No. 1085/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Nature Of Disposal: WITHDRAWL
Disposal Date: 05-10-2018