Bombay High Court
MINJAL CHS LIMITED THR. SECRETARY/TREASURER SAVIO FERNANDES AND CHARLES PINTOversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MILIND N JADHAV
Holding
The court held that no coercive steps may be taken under the fresh notice until the notice of motion is heard and decided.
Summary
The appellant, Minjal CHS Ltd., a society, challenged an ad‑interim order that allowed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to issue a fresh notice under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, to take over land and a compound wall in front of its building for a road‑widening project. The society argued that the notice would render the pending suit infructuous and sought to restrain any coercive action pending the hearing of the notice of motion scheduled for 25‑04‑2026. The corporation contended that the notice was necessary due to flood‑line considerations, storm‑water drainage connectivity, and road geometry requirements. The appellate court examined whether the corporation could proceed with coercive steps before the notice of motion was heard and whether the ad‑interim order should be stayed. It held that no coercive steps may be taken pending the hearing and directed the trial court to schedule the notice of motion accordingly. The appeal was disposed without expressing any opinion on the merits, and the interim application was also dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a fresh notice issued under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act on pending litigation?
- Can the Municipal Corporation take coercive steps to acquire land before the notice of motion is heard?
- Should the ad‑interim order be stayed pending final determination of the notice of motion?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- road widening
- TDR
- land acquisition
- coercive steps
- interim order
- municipal corporation
- Section 299
- property rights
Judgment
P16.AO.280.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.280 OF 2026
Minjal CHS Ltd. Appellant/
.. Original Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Respondent/
.. Original Defendant
....................
Dr. Jyoti Panickar, Advocate for Appellant / Original Plaintiff.
Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocate for Respondent.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 24, 2026
P.C.:
1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated
24.03.2026. Perused the praecipe.
2. Heard Dr. Panickar, learned Advocate for Appellant /
Original Plaintiff and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondent.
3. Appeal from Order is filed by Plaintiff – Society assailing the
ad-interim order dated 22.12.2025 which is appended at Exhibit-A,
page No.21 of the Appeal from Order. It is ad-interim order. In order
to remove bottleneck and construct 9.5 meter road project which is
under progress and widen the said road, the building projection line of
the Plaintiff – Society comes in the way as an obstruction. Reason
mentioned in the ad-interim order is that when the Society building
was constructed and the width of road in front of suit plot was
1 of 4
P16.AO.280.2026.doc
determined, at that time Defendant – Corporation had granted TDR
during that development and Plaintiff – Society had stated that it will
hand over the setback at the time of redevelopment. The impugned
action has been invoked however not in view of redevelopment of
Plaintiff – Society’s building but in view of the road widening project
undertaken by the Municipal Corporation. What has been stated above
has been noted on the basis of submissions made across the bar while
passing the ad-interim order after hearing the parties. Court has
however directed the Corporation to file appropriate Reply to the
Notice of Motion.
4. Dr. Panickar informs the Court that the Affidavit-in-Reply
has been filed by Corporation as directed in the order dated
22.12.2025. Immediate apprehension is expressed by Dr. Panickar on
basis of fresh notice dated 16.03.2026 issued by Corporation copy of
which is appended to the praecipe. This notice is issued under Section
299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, inter alia, stating
that in view of refusal of ad-interim relief by virtue of the impugned
order, the Corporation will take coercive steps in taking over the land
belonging to the Society which comprises of land in front of the Society
building alongwith its compound wall constructed by the Plaintiff –
Society for its safety. The notice dated 16.03.2026 is placed before me
perusal of which prima facie shows that merely based upon the ad-
interim order, Corporation has issued the fresh notice and desires to
2 of 4
P16.AO.280.2026.doc
take coercive action within 72 hours thereof.
5. Dr. Panickar persuades the Court to consider the fact that if
the fresh notice dated 16.03.2026 is implemented, the entire cause of
action in the Suit proceedings will become infructuous. She would also
submit that the Notice of Motion is pending hearing and next date for
hearing the Notice of Motion is fixed on 25.04.2026. I agree with the
submissions made by Dr. Panickar.
6. Mr. Vanjale, learned Advocate enters appearance on behalf
of Corporation. He would inform the Court that fresh notice has been
issued in view of reasons stated therein, inter alia, due to flood line
and connectivity of storm water drain to be connected and availability
of less torque on the turn and curvature and therefore the road
requires to be extended.
7. Learned Trial Court is therefore directed to ensure that the
Notice of Motion is heard on 25.04.2026. Copy of this order shall be
placed before learned Trial Court day after tomorrow i.e. on
26.04.2026 at 11:00 a.m. for its perusal and convenience so that
learned Trial Court shall note the fact that this Notice of Motion will
have to be heard and decided on the next adjourned date finally and
the Court shall accordingly adjust its board. The lis between the
parties shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.
8. Liberty to the Corporation to apply, if they require any pre-
3 of 4
P16.AO.280.2026.doc
ponement of pending Notice of Motion before the Trial Court but only
with due notice to the Plaintiff – Society. Needless to state that the ad-
interim order shall be subject to the final order passed in the Notice of
Motion.
9. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken in
furtherance of the fresh notice dated 16.03.2026 issued by the
Corporation against the Society’s land and its compound wall.
10. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter,
Appeal from Order is disposed. In view of disposal of Appeal from
Order, pending Interim Application is also disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
SAWANT
HANUMANT Date:
SAWANT 2026.03.24
19:41:18
+0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…