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

2008 Supreme(Bom) 275

J.H.BHATIA
Shameem Shah – Appellant
Versus
Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika – Respondent


Advocates appeared
Mr.Aditya Chitale , adv. for the Appellant.
Mrs.Geeta Joglekar , adv. for the Respondent/BMC.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.

2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. According to the appellant, she had purchased the suit premises being suit shop no.4 from one Vinod Vishram Tawade on 18.2.1997. The said Vinod Tawade had purchased the suit premises from one Bazirao Shripat Thorat, who was original allottee. On 21.9.2007, two person from the office of the defendant/Municipal Corporation approached the suit premises and asked the brother and sister of the plaintiff to demolish the suit premises. According to the plaintiff, no notice was served by the defendant to the plaintiff and the defendant is intending to demolish the suit premises without following due process of law. With this contention, she filed suit seeking to restrain the defendant from taking any action without due process of law till decision of the suit. She also took out notice of motion for temporary injunction of the same nature. The defendant contested the notice of motion contending that the suit shop itself is illegal and unauthorized construction. There are number of illegal structures in the said vicinity of Tata Colony, Bharat Nagar, Bandra (East). So, the defe



























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