First Appeal No. 33 of 2013 with Civil Application No. 162 of 2013 in First Appeal No. 33 of 2013. Case: Shekhar Naidu Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 33 of 2013 with Civil Application No. 162 of 2013 in First Appeal No. 33 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate and For Respondents: Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate |
| Judges | A. P. Bhangale, J. |
| Issue | Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Section 53; Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 314, 351, 527 |
| Judgement Date | August 26, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
A. P. Bhangale, J.
-
Respondent waives service of notice. By consent heard learned Advocates Shri Saraogi and Mrs. Joglekar at final hearing. This appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in L.C. Suit No. 405 of 2010, decided on 5/10/2013., whereby the learned City Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.
-
After compilation of copies of evidence and documents relied upon in the suit is filed, the appeal is heard finally. The facts, which are briefly stated are, that the plaintiff-appellant claimed lawful use and occupation of one hut outside the
St. George Hospital , in the lane known as "St. George Galli, near G.P.O., Fort, Mumbai. The hut occupied by the plaintiff-appellant situated on the footpath adjoining the hospital. It was claim of the plaintiff that it was in existence since many years and since prior to the year 1990. He also claimed that there was separate number given as 'Shop No. 1' to that hut. The plaintiff also claimed possessing the documentary evidence, such as election card, ration card, driving licence contending that his family used to reside and conduct business of selling sugarcane juice and other eatables, after having obtained licence under the Shops and Establishment Act. -
It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, without issuance of notice, the defendant - Mumbai Municipal Corporation ("Corporation" for short), had demolished the said hut even while the suit was pending in the Bombay City Civil Court. The issue in the suit was whether demolition work undertaken by the Corporation was illegal/bad in law and whether the plaintiff was entitled to reconstruction of the suit premises, as also about the want of pre-suit statutory notice u/s. 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The learned trial judge, it appears that, considering the legal provisions regarding permission for construction required to be obtained under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence led before him, that suit structure was situated on footpath and, therefore, action taken on behalf of the defendant-Corporation to demolish the same was legal. The grievance on behalf of the plaintiff - appellant is that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant-Corporation demolished the suit structure without following the due process of law. As according to the learned advocate for the plaintiff, notice u/s. 351 of the Mumbai Municipal...
To continue reading
Request your trial