Bombay High Court
MR. MADHUKAR VYANKATRAO KHARATMOLversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHARMILA U DESHMUKH
Holding
The High Court disposed of the appeal and the interim application, extending the interim protection until the trial is finally disposed.
Summary
The appellant, Mr. Madhukar Vyankatrao Kharatmol, appealed an order that rejected his application for an injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for enforcing a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. The trial court had denied the injunction in 2019, but the High Court granted interim relief in February 2020, which has been repeatedly extended. Six years later, the corporation had not responded to the interim application, and the trial was proceeding with evidence. The High Court observed that the structure sought to be protected had been under its protection since 2020 and ordered that the appeal be disposed of, extending the protection until the trial’s final disposal. Consequently, both the appeal from the order and the interim application were dismissed, leaving the protection in place pending the trial’s conclusion.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate jurisdiction of the High Court to extend interim protection pending trial?
- Does the failure of the corporation to respond to the interim application affect the continuance of the injunction?
- Whether the appeal from the order rejecting the injunction can be disposed of without further hearing.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- inju nctive relief
- municipal corporation
- Section 351
- interim protection
- appeal disposal
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:32695
95 ao 128-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 128 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2626 OF 2019
Mr. Madhukar Vyankatrao Kharatmol ... Appellant.
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondents.
—————
Mr. Satyavan N. Vaishnav a/w. Nupur J. Mukherjee, Mr. Armaan
Grewal, Mr. Rahul Raut, Jasmine Sabharwal, F. Rajput i/by M/s. N.n.
Vishnawa and Co. for the Appellant.
Mr. J.K. Shah a/w. Namrata Thakar a/w. Samiksha Ludhe i/by RJ Law
for Respondent No.2.
—————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : August 06, 2026
P.C. :
1. The Appeal from Order arises out of the order of the Trial
Court of the year 2019 rejecting the Plainti9’s application for
injunctive relief against the Defendant-Corporation for enforcing
notice issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1988. Vide order dated 25 th February, 2020, ad-
interim relief was granted by this Court which has been
continued from time to time. Even after six years, there is no
sa_mandawgad 1 of 2
95 ao 128-25.doc
reply =led by the Corporation to the Interim Application. The
appeal has already been admitted.
2. This Court is informed that the proceedings are at the
stage of leading evidence before the Trial Court. As the structure
has been protected since the last six years by an order of this
Court, it would be appropriate if the Appeal from Order is
disposed of by extending the protection granted by this Court till
the hearing and =nal disposal of the suit.
3. It is expected that the parties will cooperate in the disposal
of the suit particularly considering that the appeal is disposed of
only for the reason that the trial has commenced before the Trial
Court and protection has been operating in favour of the
Plainti9 since the year 2020. With these observations, Appeal
from Order stands disposed of.
4. Interim Application does not survive for consideration and
stands disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
sa_mandawgad 2 of 2
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/08/2026 18:49:10
Checking your session…