Bombay High Court

B.JOSEPH BALIAH NADAR AND ORSversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

Holding

The High Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and the Section 314 notice, subject to a monthly deposit order.

Summary

The appellants, the heirs of the late B. Joseph Baliah Nadar, challenged a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, alleging illegal construction of a 100 sq.ft. shed. The City Civil Court had upheld the notice and passed a decree on 9 November 2011, which the appellants sought to stay pending their appeal. The High Court noted that the interim order previously granted was expiring and that no speaking order had been made for the ad‑interim relief. To balance the equities, the Court directed the appellants to deposit Rs 7,500 per month from December 2011, to be held in fixed deposit until the appeal is decided. The Court ordered that any default in payment would vacate the stay, and that the deposited amount, with interest, would be returned if the appeal succeeds or otherwise disposed of by the appellate court. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned judgment and the 1997 notice were stayed subject to the deposit condition. The civil application for stay was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can grant a stay of the City Civil Court's judgment and the Section 314 notice pending the appeal
Whether the condition of monthly deposit of Rs 7,500 is appropriate to preserve the status quo

Legislation cited

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 314

Subjects

stay of execution
municipal law
illegal construction
Section 314
interim relief
deposit condition
appeal
High Court

Judgment

             ppn                              1                            7.ca-3.12.doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 Digitally signed     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             by PRACHI
PRACHI       PRANESH
PRANESH      NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
             Date: 2026.01.28   CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2012
             17:44:57 +0530
                                                  IN
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO.147 OF 2012


        B. Joseph Baliah Nadar (deleted since deceased)
        1a. Mrs. Joseph Baliah Nadar & Anr.             ..Applicants/Appellants
               V/s.
        Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay                         ..Respondent

                                           ----
        Ms. Aditi Naikare i/by Mr. Pradeep Thorat for the applicants/appellants.
        Mr.Pradeep M Patil for the respondent-MCGM.
                                         ----

                                            CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
                                            DATED : 28 January 2026

        P.C. :

        1.         This application is filed for seeking stay of the impugned judgment
        and decree passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai on 9 November, 2011 by
        which the notice issued under section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal
        Corporation Act, 1888 (for short ‘the Act’) was upheld.

        2.         On 4 January, 2012, since the interim order passed by the learned
        judge was expiring, this Court extended the status-quo granted. Thereafter,
        on 29 July, 2022, this matter was taken on production board and ad interim
        granted by the said order was continued. There is no speaking order
        granting ad-interim/interim relief.

        3.         Today the matter is admitted. The notice under Section 314 of the
        Act has been issued by respondent-Corporation pointing out illegal
     ppn                                2                           7.ca-3.12.doc


construction of a shed admeasuring approximately 100 sq.ft. The shed
structure is a garage in South Bombay. As of today, the order of the City
Civil Court is against the appellant. If the interim relief is not granted and
ultimately the appellant succeeds, then the damage cannot be reversed. At
the same time, if the suit structure continues and it is found that the
Corporation was justified in issuing the notice, then the applicant/appellant
has continued to enjoy the fruits of illegal structure from the date of the
impugned notice dated 1 October 1997 or atleast from the date the Trial
Court dismissed the suit on 9 November 2011. Therefore, to balance the
equity and the impugned order as of today which is against the appellant,
this Court directs the applicant/appellant to deposit Rs. 7,500/- per month
(though this is very low compared to market trend) from December 2011
till today within six weeks from today and continue to deposit the same
every month in this Court. If these amounts are deposited, then same will
be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalized bank and the said deposit to
continue till disposal of the appeal.

4.         If there is any default in payment of the above amount till today or
any default of monthly payment in future, then interim relief granted will
stand vacated.

5.         The amount deposited in this Court along with interest, if any,
accrued thereon will be subject to outcome of the first appeal. If the
appellant succeeds, then the amount will be returned along with interest
thereon and if the appellant does not succeed, then the appeal Court will
decide whether the amount should be given to the Corporation or to any
other authority.

6.         Subject to the order of deposit made above, the operation of the
impugned judgment dated 9 November 2011 and impugned notice dated 1
     ppn                                  3                 7.ca-3.12.doc


October 1997 is stayed.

7.         Civil application is disposed of.



                                               (JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…