Bombay High Court
BABURAM SHIVMURAT YADAVversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GR.MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court stayed the notice and the trial court’s order, subject to the appellant depositing Rs 50,000 per month in a fixed deposit with the court registry.
Summary
The appellant, Baburam Shivmurat Yadav, constructed a commercial building of approximately 2,850 sq. ft. in Kandivali without obtaining the requisite municipal approvals. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 on 24 May 2008, which the appellant challenged before the City Civil Court. The trial court rejected the challenge on 7 July 2012, finding the appellant had failed to prove the legality of the structure. The appellant then filed a civil application seeking a stay of the notice and the trial court’s order pending the pending first appeal (No. 1409 of 2012). The High Court granted a stay, conditioning it on the appellant depositing Rs 50,000 per month into a fixed deposit with the court registry, with strict compliance timelines, and warned that default would vacate the interim relief. The court also directed that, if the appeal is ultimately dismissed, the deposited amount (with interest) may be handed over to the corporation or a charitable cause. The application for stay was therefore disposed of subject to these conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 can be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
- Whether the appellant should be required to furnish security in the form of monthly deposits to protect the municipal corporation’s interests.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- stay of execution
- municipal notice
- Section 351
- illegal construction
- commercial premises
- security deposit
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
HMK 1 17. CAF-2901-2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2901 OF 2012
Digitally
IN
SAYYED signed by
SAYYED
SAEED SAEED ALI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2012
ALI AHMED ALI
AHMED Date:
2026.03.05
ALI 10:33:33
+0530
Baburam Shivmurat Yadav ….Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai .…Respondent
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Mohit Jadhav a/w. Mr. Manish Shirke for the Appellant.
Ms. Pallavi Khale i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent-MCGM.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 04th MARCH 2026
P. C. :
1. By a separate order, first appeal has been admitted.
2. The present application is taken out for stay of the notice under
Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 dated
24th May, 2008 and the impugned order passed by the City Civil Court on
07th July, 2012, by which, challenge to the notice was rejected.
3. The suit structure consist of commercial premises admeasuring 29’0’’
x 95’6’’ x (14’6’’ + 18’7’’ / 2) size of mezzanine floor – 57’0’’ x 30’0’’. The
suit premises are being used for commercial purpose. The suit structure
consist of approximately 2850 sq. ft. as per the learned counsel for the
appellant.
HMK 2 17. CAF-2901-2012.doc
4. The appellant has admitted in the cross-examination that he has not
produced any records to show that the structure was legal. The learned
Trial Court has passed a detailed reasoned order and in paragraph 11 has
concluded that the appellant has failed to prove his case. Nothing has been
shown to me that the findings by the learned Trial Court are perverse.
5. If the suit structure is demolished and ultimately the appeal is
allowed, then, the damage will be irreversible. However, if the appeal is
dismissed, then the appellant would have used the suit structure which is
illegal atleast from 24th May, 2008, date of notice under Section 351,
though according to the appellant he has been using the structure prior
thereto. Therefore, to balance the equity, the impugned notice under
Section 351 dated 24th May, 2008 and the impugned order dated 07 th July,
2012 is stayed, subject to following conditions :-
(a) Appellant to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per month from
01st June, 2008 to 31st March, 2026 within eight weeks
from today with the Registry of this Court.
(b) Appellant to continue deposit of Rs. 50,000/- per month
from 01st April, 2026 on or before 07 th of every month
with the Registry of this Court till the disposal of the
appeal.
(c) Registry to invest the above amounts in the fixed deposit
and the said fixed deposit to be kept alive till the disposal
of the appeal and the said fixed deposit will be the subject
of the outcome of the appeal.
(d) If there is default of any deposit to be made under this
order, then interim relief will stand vacated.
(e) Appellant will not be granted any extension of time at any
cost for making of the above deposit.
(f) Appellant to inform the concerned Ward Officer about the
HMK 3 17. CAF-2901-2012.doc
deposit within seven days of making the deposit.
6. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- is on adhoc basis, much less then what
the commercial rate for rent in Kandivali area fetches.
7. If the appeal is dismissed, then the Court will consider whether to
hand over the amount deposited along with interest to the Corporation or
for any charitable cause.
8. Civil application for stay is disposed of in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
Checking your session…