Bombay High Court
MR. RAMESH PRAKASH YADAVversusTHE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court stayed the impugned order, subject to the appellant depositing Rs.15,000 per month as security until the appeal is disposed.
Summary
The appellant filed an interim application seeking a stay of the trial court's order dated 12 April 2019, which had dismissed his suit challenging a notice issued under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The disputed structure, a 230 sq. ft. garage in Mulund, was slated for demolition by the corporation, and the appellant argued that demolition would cause irreversible loss. The court balanced equity by directing the appellant to deposit Rs.15,000 per month as security, to be held in fixed deposit until the appeal is decided. The stay would be vacated automatically if the appellant failed to make the deposits. The appellant was also ordered to inform the ward officer of the deposit within seven days. The interim application was disposed with these conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the suit challenging the notice under s.351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 can be stayed pending appeal
- Whether the appellant should be required to furnish a security deposit as a condition for the stay
Legislation cited
Subjects
- interim stay
- municipal notice
- section 351
- demolition
- security deposit
- equity
- appeal
Judgment
925-IA-3390-2019.doc
srk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SUMIT Digitally signed by
SUMIT RAMESH
RAMESH KARNIK
Date: 2026.02.20
KARNIK 18:02:09 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3390 OF 2019
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.549 OF 2020
Mr. Ramesh Prakash Yadav … Appellant
Versus
The Bombay Municiapal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Sumit R. More for the Appellant/ Applicant.
Mr. Pradeep M. Patil (BMC) for the Respondents.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 20 FEBRUARY 2026
P. C.:
1. The present application is filed seeking stay of the
impugned order dated 12th April 2019 whereby suit filed by the plaintiff
challenging notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporartion Act, 1888 came to be rejected. The Trial Court has
observed that the notice issued to the plaintiff was not replied by the
plaintiff. The Trial Court has also observed that no evidence has been
led to show the existence of the structure prior to 1st April 1962.
2. The structure admeasuring 230 sq. ft. is being used as
garage at Mulund, Mumbai. If the impugned order is not stayed then
the Corporation will demolish the whole structure and the damage will
be irreversible. However, if the Appeal is dismissed then the plaintiff
would have used the illegal structure from 2010 if not before without
1 of 2
925-IA-3390-2019.doc
any permission. Therefore, to balance the equity, plaintiff is directed to
deposit Rs.15,000/- per month from 1st January, 2011 to 31st March,
2026 within eight weeks from today and thereafter to continue the
deposit of Rs.15,000/- per month in this Court till the disposal of the
Appeal.
3. The above deposit in this Court is to be invested in fixed
deposit and the said fixed deposit will be kept alive till the disposal of
the suit. The deposit will be subject to the outcome of the present
Appeal. If the Appeal is dismissed, the Court will consider whether to
hand over the amount to the Corporation or for any charitable purpose.
If there is a default in any amount to be deposited as per this order then
the stay granted will be automatically vacated.
4. The plaintiff to inform the concerned Ward Officer within
seven days of him making deposit under this Order.
5. Civil Application No.3390 of 2019 is disposed of in above
terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
2 of 2
Checking your session…