Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949

20 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

JEEVAN CHANDRABHAN IDNANI & ANR.versusDIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, KONKAN BHAVAN & ORS.

2012 INSC 5631 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the formation of a post‑poll "aghadi" (front) by councillors of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation after municipal elections. The petitioners argued that the second proviso to sub‑section (2) of Section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 allows the creation of an aghadi or

CHANDRAKANT KHAIREversusDR. SHANTARAM KALE & ORS.

1988 INSC 19429 July 1988Dismissed

The first meeting of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation was convened on 6 May 1988 to elect the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee members. A violent disturbance broke out when opposition councillors seized ballot boxes and chairs were thrown, prompting the Municipal Commissioner to adjourn the proceedings at

SOLAPUR MIDC INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 79526 July 1996Dismissed

The Solapur MIDC Industries Association filed Special Leave Petitions challenging a notification under Section 3(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 that brought their industrial estate within the limits of Solapur Municipal Corporation. The petitioners argued that the same industrial area was s

CALCUTTA GUJRATI EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR.versusCALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

2003 INSC 41525 August 2003Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which imposes a consolidated property tax on owners and occupiers. Tenants, sub‑tenants and occupiers argued that they were denied participation in valuation, notice of assessment, and a meaningful right of appeal, especially where they were requi

J.N. GANATRAversusMORVI MUNICIPALITY, MORVI

1996 INSC 75519 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

J.N. Ganatra, an overseer with Morvi Municipality, was dismissed by a resolution dated 1 December 1970 without the procedure prescribed in Rule 35 of the Morvi City Municipal Officers and Servants Conduct, Discipline, Dismissal, Penalty and Appeal Rules, 1960. He filed a civil suit challenging the dismissal; the trial

BAHADURSINH LAKHUBHAI GOHILversusJAGDISHBHAI M. KAMALIA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 72817 December 2003Dismissed

An auction was held by the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (then Gujarat) in 1951 for a 99‑year lease of a vacant plot. The highest bidder, Shri Vajubha (predecessor of the appellant), paid only part of the premium and was given a three‑month extension to pay the balance, with a condition that failure would can

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD & ORS.versusJAN MOHAMMED USMANBHAI & ANR.

1986 INSC 8317 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad issued standing orders under Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, closing the municipal slaughter house on seven specified days each year. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai, a beef dealer, challenged the orders as an unreasonable restriction on his r

RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusMANJULBEN JAYANTILAL NAKUM AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3417 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Jayantilal was killed when a roadside tree, planted by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, fell on him while he was walking on a footpath. His widow and children sued the corporation for damages, alleging negligence in failing to maintain the tree in a safe condition. The trial court and the Gujarat High Cou

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.versusTHE JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

2003 INSC 8514 February 2003Leave Granted & Allowed

The State of Maharashtra sought to convert Jalgaon Municipal Council into a Municipal Corporation after the 2001 provisional census showed the urban population exceeded three lakh. The High Court quashed the conversion notifications on four grounds: an alleged unconstitutional hiatus, reliance on provisional population

AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.versusNILAYBHAI R. THAKORE AND ANR.

1999 INSC 47713 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) runs N.H.L. Municipal Medical College and, through Rules 6(i) and 7, defined a "local student" as one who passed qualifying examinations from schools located within the municipal limits. Permanent residents of Ahmedabad who obtained their qualifications from schools in the adja

SUNDARJAS KANYALAL BHATIJA & ORS.versusCOLLECTOR, THANE, MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

1989 INSC 20213 July 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of Maharashtra issued a draft notification under Section 3(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 to create Kalyan Corporation by merging Kalyan, Ambarnath, Dombivali and Ulhasnagar. After receiving numerous objections, only the All India Sindhi Panchayat Federation was granted a per

JASWANTSINGH PRATAPSINGH JADEJAversusRAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.

2007 INSC 103911 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja was appointed as a Vigilance Officer of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation on a temporary basis with a six‑month probation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. His probation was repeatedly extended beyond the statutory limit, and after a period of unauthorized leave

VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusPURSHOTTAM V. MURJANI AND ORS.

2014 INSC 61610 September 2014Dismissed

A boat operated by Ripple Aqua Sports under a licence from Vadodara Municipal Corporation was overloaded with 38 passengers (capacity 22) and capsized, killing 22. The victims filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service. The State Consumer Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABADversusBEN HIRABEN MANILAL

1983 INSC 325 April 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent purchased a house in 1960, but in 1965 unauthorised walls were added without municipal permission. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation issued a notice under Section 260(1)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, requiring the respondent to show cause why the unauthorised work should

M/S. SIEMENS LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 9411 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Siemens Ltd., a multi‑location company, owned a factory within the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) limits and another outside those limits. The BMC issued a show‑cause notice demanding payment of municipal cess on goods supplied from the factory outside its jurisdiction. Siemens filed a writ petition under Article 2

CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2026 INSC 6651 July 2026Disposed off

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda appealed against the High Court's refusal to quash a criminal case initiated for allegedly suppressing her spouse's property in an election affidavit filed for the 2015 municipal councillor election. The trial magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search