Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Ad-Int-NM No. 4779-19 in SU3148-19
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
ORDER ON AD INTERIM RELIEF ON
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4779 OF 2019
(CNR no. MHCC010130552019)
IN
SUIT NO. 3148 OF 2019
(CNR no. MHCC010124452019)
Mr. Narendra Premji Nandu ]
Age : about 63 years, Occ Business ]
having his address at Shop No.1&2 ]
in Shah Shopping Centre ]
(previously known as Haideree Begum Chawl, ]
Milan Medical Store, Shah Estate), ]
L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400 086 ]... Plaintiff
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, ]
A statutory body fomed and established ]
under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ]
having their office at Mahapalika Bhavan, ]
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. ]
"N" Ward, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai. ]....Defendant
Appearances:
Ld. Advocate Mr. Vimalesh Singh for the Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mrs. D. D. Patil for defendant/MCGM.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI C. V. MARATHE
(Court Room no. 8)
DATED : 20th December, 2019
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Ad-Int-NM No. 4779-19 in SU3148-19
O R A L O R D E R O N A D I N T E R I M R E L I E F
1. Perused plaint, Notice of Motion, documents annexed to
the plaint, documents filed by defendant/MCGM and heard both sides.
The plaintiff is challenging notice/order dated 27.11.2019 purported to
be under Section 314 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
(hereinafter "MMC Act") passed by defendant/MCGM. Ld. Advocate for
the plaintiff has submitted that in L.C. Suit No. 774 of 2018 the officer
of defendant/MCGM appeared and made statement that he would
consider the documents of the plaintiff and then pass order and would
communicate the same to the plaintiff but no such order was
communicated to the plaintiff and directly the impugned notice was
issued. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff has further submitted that the
plaintiff has voluminous documents which prove his eligibility for PAP
but all those documents are ignored by defendant/MCGM and he is
declared noneligible for PAP. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff has further
submitted that the defendant/MCGM has not even communicated
reasoned order to the plaintiff as directed by this Court in L.C. Suit
No.744 of 2018.
2. After going through the notice dated 27.11.2019, demolition of
the suit premises is required for Golibar Road widening. Initially when
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Ad-Int-NM No. 4779-19 in SU3148-19
the suit was filed, the plaintiff did not receive copy of Annexure II but
after filing of the suit he received the same on 10.12.2019. There is
reference to the documents filed by the plaintiff in the said Annexure II.
Even if it is assumed that some of the documents of the plaintiff are not
considered by defendant/MCGM while preparing Annexure II, the
plaintiff has remedy to file appeal before Zonal DMC against the said
order. As mentioned above, the suit premises is required to be
demolished for a public project of road widening. The Court has to
balance public interest and private rights. Moreover, if the plaintiff
proves his eligibility for PAP before the Civil Court, the prayer in the
suit will be granted and the same will be binding on the local authority
i.e. defendant/MCGM. Therefore, for the said issue the public project
need not be stalled. For above reasons following order :
ORDER
Adinterim relief is rejected.
(C. V. Marathe)
Judge,
Date : 20.12.2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 20.12.2019
Transcribed on : 20.12.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 21.12.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Ad-Int-NM No. 4779-19 in SU3148-19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 23.12.2019 at 11.29 a.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. Gayatri P. Acharekar
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. C. V. Marathe
C.R. no.08
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
20/12/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
21/12/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
23/12/2019
-- 4 of 4 --