V. R. ADVERTISERS vs MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BRIHAN MUMBAI

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 665

RUMA PAL, B.N.AGARWAL
V. R. ADVERTISERS – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BRIHAN MUMBAI – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Arun Jaitely, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh and Sameer Parekh, Advocates for PH Parekh & Co.) for the Petitioner;
Alok Agarwal, E.C. Agrawala, Pallav Shishodia and D.N. Mishra, Advocates, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is granted liberty to pray for listing of the matters before the next Vacation Bench on urgent basis. The respondent will take necessary instructions in the meanwhile.

2. If the petitioner's building is not a listed heritage building, there will be order of status quo. We make it clear that if the hoarding has already been removed the same shall not be re-erected. Similarly if any portion of it has been removed either wholly or partially it shall not be re-erected.

Court Masters

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

Scan Me!

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

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

2004 Supreme(SC) 665

RUMA PAL, B.N.AGARWALV. R. ADVERTISERS – AppellantVersusMUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BRIHAN MUMBAI – Respondent

RUMA PAL, B.N.AGARWAL
V. R. ADVERTISERS – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BRIHAN MUMBAI – Respondent