Order 2

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: - 1 -
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW EXH. NO. 7
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1714 OF 2018
Pravin Kunj and Sharad Villa Association .. Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .. Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI K.P.NANDEDKAR
(C.R.NO.11)
DATE : 28th September, 2018
Mr. Upadhyay, ld. adv. for plaintiff.
Ms. Tondvalkar, ld. adv. for defendant/BMC.
O R D E R
1. This is the application filed by plaintiff for rejecting TAC
report dated 01.09.2018. It is mentioned in the application that
pursuant to the orders of this Court in this suit matter was referred to
TAC and TAC has submitted its report. While plaintiff's adv. was going
through said report it was found that adv. representing BMC before this
Court has signed TAC report and according to plaintiff's adv. inquiry
conducted by TAC cannot be said to be inquiry conducted
independently. Hence report of TAC cannot be said to be independent
report. It is contended that ld. adv. of BMC should have deviated
herself from participating TAC. Hence it is necessary to reject TAC
report. With those contentions plaintiff has contended that application
Exh. 7 should be allowed.
2. Defendant's adv. Mr. Tondvalkar by filing say contended
that this application is not maintainable because report of TAC was filed
on record on 05.09.2018 and since then plaintiff has not filed any
-- 1 of 4 --
- 2 -
rejoinder. Moreover, as per directions of this Curt matter was referred
to TAC and as per guidelines of the Hon'ble High Court TAC is formed
and members of TAC are decided as per guidelines of Hon'ble High
Court. Hence according to defendant TAC report placed before this
Court is true and correct and it cannot be challenged before this Court.
Hence defendant has prayed to reject the application.
3. Heard. Plaintiff's adv. Mr. Upadhyay has pointed out
advocate Ms. Tondvalkar who is representing defendant/BMC has
signed TAC report hence according to plaintiff's adv., adv. Ms.
Tondvalkar either should have deviated from appearing before this
Court or from signing TAC report. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that
TAC report is signed by adv. Ms. Tondvalkar is necessary to be rejected.
4. As report of TAC is submitted as per order passed by my
learned predecessor on 18.07.2018 and as per guidelines of the Hon'ble
High Court, authority of TAC cannot be challenged before this Court.
Further in the light of observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the
case between Pravinchandra Mehgji Nisar and Ors vs. Municipal
Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors this Court cannot sit over said
TAC's report and take any different view of the matter. Hence I find
that application Exh. 7 is not tenable. Hence I proceed to pass
following order.
O R D E R
Application Exh. 7 stands rejected.
(K.P.Nandedkar)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
28/09/2018 Gr.Bombay
-- 2 of 4 --
- 3 -
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4 -
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
4.10.2018 04.15PM Y.S. Patil (H.G.)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri K.P.Nandedkar (CR No.11)
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order. 28/09/2018
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 4/10/2018
Judgment/order uploaded on 4/10/2018
-- 4 of 4 --