Bombay High Court

MR. RAMESH D. PATEL @ GRAMIversusTHE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

Holding

The Court declined to revive the interim relief and disposed the application, refusing the appellant's prayer.

Summary

The appellant, Ramesh D. Patel, sought revival of interim relief that had been vacated by an order dated 23 December 2025 in his dispute with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation over an alleged illegal structure under Section 351 of the MMC Act. The Court asked the appellant to produce a speaking order granting the interim relief, but none was produced; the only order shown was a simple extension of a stay. The Court noted that the appellant had not raised the claim regarding the structure before the Trial Court, making a stay of that order impermissible. To balance equities, the Court suggested the appellant deposit Rs.15,000 per month (totaling Rs.36 lakhs) as security for any interim relief, refundable if the appeal succeeded. The appellant declared inability to make the deposit, and consequently the Court refused to consider the prayer for interim relief and disposed of the civil application.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to revival of interim relief after it was vacated.
Whether a stay of the Trial Court's order can be granted without a prior submission on the matter.
Whether the appellant must deposit security as a condition for granting interim relief.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act — s. 351

Subjects

interim relief
stay order
Section 351
illegal structure
municipal corporation
civil appeal
security deposit
equity

Judgment

ppn 1 12.caf-1769.13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.02.02 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1769 OF 2013
17:16:14 +0530
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1550 OF 2013

Ramesh D. Patel @ Grami ….Applicant/Appellant
V/s.
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. .…Respondents

----
Mr. Yogendra M. Kanchan for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Pradeep M. Patil for the respondent-MCGM.
----

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 2 February 2026
P. C. :

1. No orders.

2. It is expressly made clear that by an order dated 23 December 2025,
the interim reliefs were vacated. Today, learned counsel for the appellant
sought revival of the interim relief.

3. The Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the appellant
to show speaking order of this Court passed after filing of the appeal which
granted interim relief. No such order was pointed out. The order which was
pointed out was a simplicitor extension of the stay of the impugned order
granted by the Trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the suit structure is
in the plan and it existed prior to the date when he got this property from
his brother. He fairly states that this submission was not made before the
ppn 2 12.caf-1769.13.doc

Trial Court. If this submission was not made before the Trial Court, then
seeking stay of the Trial Court's order on this very submission is not
permissible.

5. The Court gave an option that as of today, the Trial Court's order is
against the appellant which has upheld the notice under Section 351 of the
MMC Act, which deals with illegal structure of approximately 300 square
feet in residential premises. The premises are located at Bandra (West)
which is a locality of high networth people. The Court, therefore, to balance
the equity of both the parties i.e., the appellant and the Corporation,
suggested to the appellant that Rs. 15,000/-per month from June 2006 till
January 2026 be deposited in this Court. The said figure till today works
out to Rs.36 lakhs. The Court also directed the appellant that if the
appellant makes this deposit within 8 weeks, then the Court can consider
the prayer for interim relief. The above amount of Rs.36 lakhs is up to
January 2026 and from 1 April 2026, Rs.15,000/- per month to be
deposited in this Court. This amount was supposed to be invested in fixed
deposit till the disposal of the appeal and the said deposit will be subject to
the outcome of the appeal. This figure has been arrived at by keeping in
mind that if the Trial Court's order is upheld, then the appellant has
enjoyed the benefit of illegal structure since 2006, if not before, though
according to the appellant, he has got this structure in the year 1956.

6. If the Trial Court's order is found to be erroneous at the time of final
disposal of the appeal, then the amount was to be refunded to the
appellant. Therefore, this course of action was suggested keeping in mind
the balance of equity of both the parties.

7. However, since the learned counsel for the appellant states that his
client is not in a position to make this payment, the prayer for interim belief
ppn 3 12.caf-1769.13.doc

cannot be considered.

8. Civil application is disposed of accordingly.

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…