Skip to main content
Court Order

Order 1

CNR MHCC01007848201825 Apr 2019
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Order 1 · 25 Apr 2019 · CNR MHCC010078482018

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 2428-18 in Suit No. 2341-18
CNR NO.MHCC0100784818
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2428 OF 2018
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2341 OF 2018
Hanif Abdul Rehman Patni …..Plaintiff
Versus
The Commissioner,
The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ..... Defendants
Coram : Sanjay N. Yadav, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 25th April, 2019.
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. M.H.Kazi for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Smt. Rawade for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff by this notice of motion seeks temporary injunction
restraining the defendant corporation from revoking his license.
2. The defendant had filed the say.
It was found in the inspection dated 12.01.2017, that the plaintiff
had infringed the condition no. 14, no trade to be carried out on of
articles to be kept outside licensed premises and found excess area used
for the service purpose. The defendant in the inspection dated
15.02.2017 found the same infrunged condition.
It is contended that the plaintiff was only permitted to prepare
-- 1 of 3 --
2 NM 2428-18 in Suit No. 2341-18
the Tea. It is stated that the plaintiff have breached the condition and
was unable to produce that CFO requirement. The CFO requirement
were not produced at the time of inspection. The plaintiff had breached
the condition of license. Therefore, the defendant had revoked license
issued to plaintiff.
The CFO requirement were not produced at the time of
inspection, it related health and was accordingly revoked.
3. Considering the fact that the health license of the plaintiff is
cancelled, as he failed to produce the CFO requirement.
4. The compliance related to the health and ultimately would affect
the consumers. The public at large would be affected, the interest of
public at large prevails to over the interest of plaintiff.
The plaintiff has failed to make out the primafacie case. The
balance of convenience does not lies in favour of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff is not entitled for the mandatory injunction as prayed for. The
plaintiff would not be put to irreparable loss, if the temporary
injunction is refused. In the result, following order is passed:
ORDER
The Notice of Motion No. 2428/2018 is dismissed.
(Sanjay N. Yadav)
Judge,
Date : 25.04.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 25.04.2019
Transcribed on : 26.04.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 30.04.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
3 NM 2428-18 in Suit No. 2341-18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 02.05.2019 at 3.05 pm.
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
25.04.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
30.04.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
02.05.2019
-- 3 of 3 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.