SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 68

N.S.HEGDE, V.N.KHARE
AMRITLAL SHALIKARAN GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
NARESH M. KANTHARIA – Respondent


( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in the City Civil Court, Bombay, without giving any notice as required under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The plaintiff-respondent also moved an application for temporary injunction and on that application, the court granted injunction, which is still intact. After the issues were struck in the suit, the plaintiff-respondent submitted an application to the Court praying that since no notice under Section 527 of the Act was given prior to filing of the suit, he may be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit after giving notice to the Municipal Corporation. The said application was rejected by the City Civil Court. The plaintiff-respondent thereafter filed a revision petition before the Bombay High Court. The High court was of the view that in case the plaintiff-respondent pays cost amounting to a sum of Rs 50,000 to the Municipal Corporation for purchasing medicines for Nair Hospital, the permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit after giving notice to the


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top