Bombay High Court
K.V. AMBU KUNHIversusTHE MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The court ordered the issuance of a notice to the appellant and dismissed the appeal due to non‑appearance.
Summary
The appellant, Shri K. V. Ambu Kunhi, filed an appeal against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay concerning notices issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The appellant failed to appear before the court on the scheduled dates, including the hearing on 25 June 2026. The respondent's counsel, Ms. Pallavi Khale, highlighted that the proceedings stemmed from the Section 351 notices. The court noted that the appellant's former law firm was no longer in practice and consequently ordered a notice to be issued to the appellant, returnable on 27 August 2026. The matter was then directed to be dismissed for non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedural consequence when an appellant fails to appear for a scheduled hearing?
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act — s. 351
Subjects
- procedural law
- non‑appearance
- municipal corporation
- Section 351
- dismissal
Judgment
14. FA 892-1997.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 892 OF 1997
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5659 OF 1997
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 892 OF 1997
Shri K. V. Ambu Kunhi ..Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ..Respondent
None for the Appellant/Applicant
Mr. Pradeep Patil a/w. Ms. Pallavi Khale i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi,
Advocates, for the Respondent - MCGM
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 2 JULY, 2026
P. C.
1. None appears for the Appellant/Applicant when the matter is
called out.
2. On the last occasion i. e. on 25 June, 2026, none appeared for
the Appellant and the following Order was passed.
“1. None appears for the Appellant/Applicant when the
matter is called out.
2. Ms. Khale, learned Counsel for the Respondent -
Corporation submits that this proceeding arises out of the
notices issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act.
3. Let this matter come up on board on 2 July, 2026
under the caption “For Dismissal”.”
Anand 1 of 2
14. FA 892-1997.doc
3. From the record, it can be seen that the law firm by name
M/s. Bhaishankar Kanga and Girdharlal used to represent the
Appellant/Applicant. Registry has informed this Court that the said
Law Firm is no more into active practice.
4. Issue notice to the Appellant/Applicant returnable on 27 August,
2026.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Anand 2 of 2
Checking your session…