Case Note & Summary
The appellants, occupants and owners of premises in Manish Apartment, Vile Parle, filed a suit seeking injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) from demolishing their structures. The trial court refused ad-interim relief. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to make out a prima facie case as the structures were allegedly unauthorized and the BMC had acted under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The court noted that the balance of convenience was against granting injunction and the appellants could not claim any right to continue occupation of unauthorized structures. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ad-Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case as the structures were allegedly unauthorized and the BMC had issued notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The court noted that the appellants' title was disputed and the balance of convenience was against granting injunction. (Paras 1-10)
B) Municipal Law - Unauthorized Construction - Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The court observed that the BMC's action was in accordance with statutory powers and the appellants, being occupants of unauthorized structures, could not claim any right to continue occupation. The court refused to interfere with the trial court's order. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants, as occupants of alleged unauthorized structures, are entitled to ad-interim relief restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structures pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 19.12.2015 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai, refusing ad-interim relief is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to injunction against statutory authority
- Unauthorized construction
- Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- Balance of convenience
- Prima facie case
- Irreparable loss
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (09) 64
Appeal from Order (Stamp) No. 1565 of 2016 with Civil Application (Stamp) No. 1567 of 2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Mr. Krishna K. Holambe Patil for the appellants, Mr. A. Y. Sakhare a/w. Mrs. Madhuri More for the Respondent-BMC, Mr. Jahangir Khan for Respondent No.3, Mr. Aniket A. Deshmukh for Respondent No.4
Mr. Pratap Mehta, Mr. Pankaj C. Shah, Mr. Suresh V. Punekar, Mr. Pannalal Soni, Dr. Sulabha V. Punekar
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, Reliance Energy Ltd., Parle Palace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Shamik Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order refusing ad-interim relief in a suit seeking injunction against demolition of structures by Municipal Corporation.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought ad-interim injunction restraining BMC from demolishing their premises pending disposal of the suit.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the BMC's notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, alleging that the structures were unauthorized.
Previous Decisions
The City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai, in Draft Notice of Motion in L. C. Suit No. 3379 of 2015, refused ad-interim relief to the appellants on 19.12.2015.
Issues
Whether the appellants have a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction against demolition.
Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting injunction.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that they are owners/occupants of the premises and the BMC's action is illegal.
Respondent-BMC contended that the structures are unauthorized and notice under Section 351 was validly issued.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants failed to establish a prima facie case as the structures were allegedly unauthorized and the BMC acted under statutory powers. The balance of convenience was against granting injunction, and the appellants could not claim any right to continue occupation of unauthorized structures.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 19.12.2015 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai, in Draft Notice of Motion in L. C. Suit No. 3379 of 2015, thereby refusing ad-interim relief to the appellants.
The court held that the appellants failed to make out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was against granting injunction.
Procedural History
The appellants filed L. C. Suit No. 3379 of 2015 in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, seeking injunction against demolition. The trial court refused ad-interim relief on 19.12.2015. The appellants filed the present appeal against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Section 351
