TrustJury record updated 21 Sept 2026
Not available
Date: 20-06-2019
Next Purpose: AD-INTERIM ORDER
Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2019
Date: 21-06-2019
Business: Adv. Shobhit Shukla for plaintiff present.
Adv. Khandagle for Deft./MCGM present.
Order on ad-interim relief.
Perused NM, plaint, documents annexed to the plaint, documents filed by defendant MCGM along with affidavit and heard both sides. The plaintiff has prayed for temporary injunction restraining defendant MCGM from demolishing the suit stall in pursuance of disputed notice dtd. 22.12.2018 and order dtd. 18.01.2019 purported to be under section 351 of MMC Act till final disposal of the suit. According to the ld. Advocate for the plaintiff the defendant MCGM had earlier issued notice to the suit stall U/s 351 of MMC Act on 24.08.2010, the same was challenged in Civil Suit and the suit came to be decreed on 03.05.2018 wherein liberty was granted to the defendant MCGM to take action with regard to the suit stall only after correcting the defects discussed in the said judgment and by following due process of law. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant MCGM did not issue notice to the plaintiff/tenant but conspired with the landlord/owner and passed the order behind back of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the landlord/owner of the suit stall and defendant MCGM are in collusion with each other, the notice and the order are illegal on the ground that no information of the said proceeding was given to the plaintiff/tenant, who is occupier of the suit stall. Ld. Adv. for the defendant MCGM has referred to the text of Section 351 of MMC Act and argued that notice to the tenant/occupier is not mandatory because the word owner or occupier is used in section 351 (a) of MMC Act.
From the above discussion, it is apparent that the defendant MCGM has not issued notice to the tenant/occupier u/s 351 of MMC Act. After careful reading of section 351 of MMC Act, issuance of notice under that section is contemplated to show sufficient cause why such unauthorized building or work shall not be removed, altered, or pulled down. It presupposes that the commissioner or the designated officer has knowledge of name of person who is in occupation of the suit stall. In this matter the earlier notice dated 24.08.2010 was issued to the plaintiff/tenant, the plaintiff fought Civil suit against defendant MCGM in respect of the same issue for 7 years, the fresh notice was issued in pursuance of liberty granted by Civil Court. Therefore, the defendant MCGM had knowledge that the plaintiff is occupier of the suit stall. In that backdrop, the designated officer of the defendant MCGM was duty bound to issue notice to the occupier of the suit stall. The interpretation of the word or used in section 351 (a) of MMC Act is applicable when the owner himself is in occupation of the suit stall. In other words, if person other than the owner is in occupation of suit stall then mere notice to the owner will not be sufficient. When drastic step like demolition is to be taken up by defendant MCGM, principles of natural justice have to be followed and notice must be issued to the occupier of the suit stall. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for ad-interim relief. Hence ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (a) till next date. This ad-interim relief will not come in any way in taking action afresh under section 351 of MMC Act after following due process of law.
Adjd to 26.08.2019 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2019
Date: 26-08-2019
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2019
Date: 11-11-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2020
Date: 03-02-2020
Business: Plaintiff present.
Adv. Rajnish Dubey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Khandagle for MCGM/Deft. present.
On oral request of advocate for Defendant, adjournment granted as last chance.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd to 09.03.2020 for NM reply .
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2020
Date: 09-03-2020
Business: Adv.Ms.Pooja for plaintiff present.
Adv. Khandagle for MCGM/Deft. present.
On oral request of advocate for Defendant, adjournment granted as last chance.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Matter adjd to 03.07.2020 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2020
Date: 03-07-2020
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2020
Date: 19-10-2020
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2021
Date: 13-01-2021
Business: (Matter pertains to C.R.No.8)
Adv. Mr. Shobit Shukla h/f. Adv. Mr. A. R. Pande for plaintiff present.
Adv. Khandagale for deft/MCGM present.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Matter adjd to 15/03/2021 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2021
Date: 15-03-2021
Business: Adv. Rajnish Dubey h/f Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Khandagle for deft/MCGM present and requests for time to file reply to NM. Time is granted till next date.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Matter adjd to 28/04/2021 for NM Reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2021
Date: 28-04-2021
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2021
Date: 26-07-2021
Business: Due to Covid-19.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2021
Date: 24-09-2021
Business: Adv Rajnish Dubey h/f Adv A.R. Pande for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for Defendant/MCGM is present and requests for time to file reply to NM. Time is granted till next date.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. To 10/11/2021 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2021
Date: 10-11-2021
Business: Adv Rajnish Dubey h/f Adv A.R. Pande for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for Defendant/MCGM is present and requests for time to file reply to NM.
Time is granted till next date.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. To 10/01/2022 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2022
Date: 10-01-2022
Business: In view of office order no.7/2022 dated 07.01.2022 of Hon\''ble Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai, pursuant to circular dated 06.01.2022 of Hon\''ble Bombay High Court prescribing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the wake of sharp surge in COVID-19 cases (all variants) and the views of stakeholders, the matter is adjourned without passing any adverse order against the party/s.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. To 14/03/2022 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2022
Date: 14-03-2022
Business: Adv Rajnish Dubey h/ Adv A.R. Pande for plaintiff present.
Adv Mrs Tondwalkar for defendant / MCGM is present and requests for time to file reply to NM. Time is granted till next date.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. To 22/04/2022 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2022
Date: 22-04-2022
Business: Adv Rajnish Dubey h/f Adv A.M. Pande for plaintiff present.
Adv Mrs Tondwalkar for defendant / MCGM is present and requests for time to file reply to NM. Time is granted till next date.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. To 15/06/2022 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2022
Date: 15-06-2022
Business: CORAM H. H. J. SHRI A. G. SANTANI (C. R. No.11)
(Matter pertains to C.R. No. 4)
Adv. Shobet Shukla h/f Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
None for defendants.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 29/07/2022 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2022
Date: 29-07-2022
Business: Adv. Rajanish Dubey h/f Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ MCGM is present and requested time to file reply to N/M. Time is granted till next date as a last chance.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 14/09/2022 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2022
Date: 14-09-2022
Business: Adv. Rajanish Dubey h/f Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC is present and requested time to file reply to N/M. Time is granted till next date.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 12/10/2022 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2022
Date: 12-10-2022
Business: Adv. Shobhet Shukla h/f Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC is present and requested time to file reply to N/M. Time is granted till next date.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 04/11/2022 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2022
Date: 04-11-2022
Business: Adv Mr. Shobet Shukla h/f. Mr. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present
None for defendant/BMC
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 14/11/2022 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2022
Date: 14-11-2022
Business: CORAM H.H.J.SHRI A.G. SANTANI(COURT ROOM No.11) IN-CHARGE OF COURT ROOM No.4
Adv. Shobhet Shukla h/f Adv. A. R. Pande for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. Sutar h/f Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC present.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 21/11/222 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2022
Date: 21-11-2022
Business: Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. Sutar h/f Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC is present and requested time to file reply to N/M. Granted.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 30/11/2022 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2022
Date: 30-11-2022
Business: Adv. Ms. Deepanjali h/f. Adv. Mr. Pandey present.
On oral request of Adv. Mr. Sutar for BMC adjourned.
Interim relief to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 5/12/2022 for N/M reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2022
Date: 05-12-2022
Business: Adv. Pooja Pandey h/f Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC is present and tendered N/M reply, TOR. Copy is supplied to other side.
Adv. for plaintiff tendered pursis for adopting rejoinder in Suit No.1414/2019, TOR.
Heard both sides on N/M.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 14/12/2022 for N/M order.
Next Purpose: NM ORDERS
Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2022
Date: 05-12-2022
Business: Adv. Pooja Pandey h/f Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC is present and tendered N/M reply, TOR. Copy is supplied to other side.
Adv. for plaintiff tendered pursis for adopting rejoinder in Suit No.1414/2019, TOR.
Heard both sides on N/M.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 14/12/2022 for N/M order.
Next Purpose: NM ORDERS
Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2022
Date: 14-12-2022
Business: Adv. Deepanjali h/f Adv. A. R. Pandey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC is present.
Due to paucity of time, matter is adjourned.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 03/01/2023 for N/M order.
Next Purpose: NM ORDERS
Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2023
Date: 03-01-2023
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv. Mrs. Rawade h/f Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC is present.
Following order is passed on Notice of Motion No.2206/2019 -
O R D E R
1. This is a suit to challenge the Show Cause Notice under Section 351 of the MMC issued by the Corporation and the plaintiff prayed for interim injunction restraining the defendant/ Corporation from implementing the notice.
2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is a tenant of the suit structure and he is in possession of the suit structure from the date of construction of suit building. The plaintiff has challenged notice on various grounds. It is the main contention of the plaintiff that the impugned notice has not been served upon him and it is served only upon the landlord. It is his further contention that the impugned notice ought to have been served upon him and given opportunity of putforth his case. It is a matter of record that previously notice under Section 351 of the MMC Act was given to the plaintiff which was challenged by him, by filing suit L.C. No. 161/2012. This Court has decreed the said suit with liberty to the Corporation to take action only after correcting the defects as observed by the Court and by following due process of the law.
3. Advocate for the corporation submitted that the Corporation has issued fresh notice to the landlord as per the observations of this Court in L.C. Suit No.161/2012. He further submitted that corporation has follow due process of law.
4. Admittedly the impugned notice has not been issued to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff is a tenant and he in possession of suit structure since 1987. The plaintiff being a tenant has interest in the suit structure. It is well settled that where the rights of the person are adversely and prejudicially affected by an order made by the Authority, such person is entitled for notice and no decision should be taken in such proceeding without first giving the person adversely affected an opportunity of putting his case. An order of demolition of structure under Section 351 of the MMC Act results in serious civil consequences leading to loss of money and property. Moreover, my Ld. Predecessor while granting ad-interim relief observed that \''the interpretation of the word used in the Section 351 of the MMC Act is applicable when the owner himself is in occupation of the suit structure. In other words, if person other than the owner is in occupation of the suit structure, then mere notice to the owner will not be sufficient\''.
5. In this case on hand the impugned notice has not been served upon plaintiff. Therefore, in view of the settled principle of law and facts of the case interest of the justice would be served if fair opportunity is given to the plaintiff to Show Cause to the notice. Therefore, in my view, if defendant/Corporation is requested to serve impugned notice to the plaintiff and decide issue again after giving opportunity to the plaintiff to submit reply and documents, will curtail further litigation as well as resolve the dispute at the earliest. The interest of justice will be served by adopting this course of action. Hence I pass following order -
O R D E R
1. Assistant Engineer/Designated Officer to issue impugned notice to the plaintiff and give opportunity to him to submit reply and document as per provisions of Section 351 of The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and pass fresh Speaking Order.
2. It is made clear that the defendant/Corporation not to take further action based upon the impugned notice till Assistant Commissioner/Designated Officer decide the issue again after giving opportunity to the plaintiff.
3. The Assistant Commissioner/Designated Officer to dispose off the issue as expeditiously as possible.
4. The earlier order to continue for two weeks thereafter passing fresh Speaking Order if the adverse is passed against the plaintiff.
5. In view of the observations above made, nothing remains in the suit, therefore, suit as well as Notice of Motion is disposed of.
Nature Of Disposal: OTHER
Disposal Date: 03-01-2023Filing Number: 106632/2019 Filing Date: 20-06-2019 First Hearing Date: 20th June 2019 Decision Date: 03rd January 2023 Court Number And Judge: 4-COURT 04 AD-HOC JUDGE
Order Details: Notice of Motion Pdf Text: Daily Status IN THE COURT OF :COURT 04 ADHOC ASST SESSIONS JUDGE Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0102206/2019 Rohidas Arjun Sawant Vs 1.MCGM 2. 2 Executive Engineer Building and Factory M West Ward Date : 03012023 Business : None for plaintiff. Adv. Mrs. Rawade h/f Adv. Mrs. Tondwalkar for defendant/ BMC is present. Following order is passed on Notice of Motion No. 2206/2019 O R D E R 1. This is a suit to…
TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.