Bombay High Court
MANSOOR MOHAMMAD ALI MULLAversusMUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGAION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA)
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- FARHAN PARVEZ DUBASH
Holding
The trial court's order denying interim relief was correct, and the appeals are dismissed.
Summary
Eighteen flat owners of the Universal Garden building challenged a notice issued by MMRDA under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 alleging unauthorized construction. They sought ad‑interim protective relief in separate suits, but the trial court denied relief, finding the notice lacked authentic documentation and that the appellants failed to satisfy the three‑pronged test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The same reasoning had been applied earlier to twelve other flat owners, whose appeals were already dismissed by this Court. In the present batch of six appeals, the Bombay High Court affirmed the trial court’s findings, dismissed the appeals as meritless, vacated any interim orders, and stayed the dismissal order for six weeks to allow a further appeal. The Court directed that any application to regularise the notice structure be dealt with by the competent authority within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing ad‑interim relief against MMRDA's Section 55 notice.
- Whether the appellants established the authenticity of the notice and satisfied the three‑pronged test for interim relief.
- Whether the order dismissing the appeals should be stayed pending further appeal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- interim relief
- Section 55
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- unauthorised construction
- stay of order
- three‑pronged test
- protective relief
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
903-AOST-6144-2025-(ii)
Shaikh Kader Vs. MMRDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 6144 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 6147 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 6148 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 6144 OF 2025
Shaikh Arifahmed Abdul Kader ... Appellant
V/s.
Mumbai Metropolitan Regional
Development Authority ... Respondent
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 6149 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 6151 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6150 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 6149 OF 2025
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 6153 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 6156 OF 2025
WITH
AMOL INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 6154 OF 2025
PREMNATH
JADHAV IN
Digitally signed by APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 6153 OF 2025
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV WITH
Date: 2026.05.06
12:28:11 +0530
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 399 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9946 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 399 OF 2025
Page 1 of 6
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AOST-6144-2025-(ii)
Shaikh Kader Vs. MMRDA
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 400 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9948 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 400 OF 2025
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 401 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9951 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 401 OF 2025
______________________________________
Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Irshad Shariff, Mr. Suhail Shariff
and Ms. Revaa Kadam i/b Falcon Legal for the Appellant.
Mr. Akshay P. Shinde for the Respondent - MMRDA.
Mr. Sachin Vajale a/w Ms. Neeta Jadhav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the
Respondent - MCGM.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL 2026
P.C.:
1. By consent of parties, the Appeals are taken up for final hearing at the
stage of admission.
2. The present 6 Appeals challenge 6 separate orders, all dated 24 th
February 2025 (impugned order) passed by the Trial Court in 6
separate Notices of Motion taken out by 6 separate Appellants/original
Plaintiffs in the Trial Court in 6 separate suits filed in/about 2025 inter
alia seeking ad-interim protective reliefs against and challenging a
Page 2 of 6
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AOST-6144-2025-(ii)
Shaikh Kader Vs. MMRDA
common notice dated 8th November 2023 (said notice) issued by the
Respondent/original Defendant/Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority (MMRDA) under Section 55 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (said Act) in
respect of unauthorized construction in separate residential flats of 24
flat owners of Universal Garden building, A-Wing, situated on Sufi
Sayyed Kamal Road, Amrut Nagar, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai 400102
(suit flat). By the impugned order passed on 24th February 2025, the
Trial Court declined ad-interim relief to the Appellants/Original
Plaintiffs and directed parties to complete the pleadings in the said
Notices of Motion.
3. In addition to these 6 suits (in which the impugned orders have been
passed), 12 other flat purchasers (out of the 24 flat purchasers to
whom the said notice was issued by MMRDA) had also approached the
Trial Court, prior thereto, in/around 2023, seeking similar reliefs, as
sought by their 6 neighbors. The Trial Court passed an order dated 20 th
August 2024 dismissing each of the 12 Notices of Motion preferred by
them by a detailed and reasoned order. This order was challenged by
the said 12 flat purchasers who have filed 12 separate Appeals before
this Court. All 18 flat purchasers (12 + 6 = 18) Appellants are
represented by the same set of advocates and counsel before this
Court. The Respondent/MMRDA is also represented by the same set of
Page 3 of 6
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AOST-6144-2025-(ii)
Shaikh Kader Vs. MMRDA
advocates and counsel. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, all 18
Appeals have been heard together.
4. By a detailed/reasoned order of today’s date, this Court has separately
dealt with and dismissed the said 12 Appeals. The impugned order
passed in the present case (in 6 Appeals) is based on and in effect,
follows the reasoning recorded in the order dated 20 th August 2024.
All 18 suits filed before the Trial Court impugn the (very same) said
notice. Thus, in the impugned order passed in the present 6 Appeals,
the Trial Court recorded a finding that the Appellants had failed to
produce any documents which established the authenticity of the
notice structure. Similarly, the Trial Court also recorded a finding that
Appellants had failed to meet and fulfil the three-pronged test
required to be satisfied by a party who approaches the Court and seeks
interim reliefs, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss.
5. The same findings were made and recorded by the Trial Court in its
detailed and reasoned order dated 20 th August 2024 which was passed
after the pleadings in the said 12 Notices of Motion were completed.
Hence, since the challenge to the said order dated 20th August 2024
has already been dealt with and negated by this Court in a separate
order of today’s date passed in the said 12 Appeals, it is not advisable
Page 4 of 6
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AOST-6144-2025-(ii)
Shaikh Kader Vs. MMRDA
to reproduce the same in the present order. Instead, this Court directs
that the reasoning and findings in the said order of today’s date, be
read and treated as forming part of this order. This is moreso since the
arguments of both parties in the present 6 Appeals is the same as their
arguments in the said 12 Appeals.
6. Accordingly, I am of the view that the impugned order does not
warrant any interference and the present Appeals are without any
merit. They are accordingly, disposed of. All pending Interim
Applications taken out in the present Appeals from Order, if any, also
stand disposed of in terms of this order, and all interim orders passed
therein, if any, also stand vacated.
7. After this order was dictated in open Court, the Appellants seek a stay
of this order since they are desirous of testing the same in appeal.
They further contend that notwithstanding the submissions of the
Respondent/MMRDA to the contrary, the notice structures are capable
of being regularized, and they inform this Court that they would prefer
an application to that effect before the appropriate Competent
Authority. If such application is preferred, the same shall be
appropriately dealt with and disposed of by the Authority, in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event,
within a period of 4 weeks from the date on which it is made.
Page 5 of 6
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AOST-6144-2025-(ii)
Shaikh Kader Vs. MMRDA
Considering the above, the present order is stayed for a period of 6
weeks from the date it is uploaded on the website of this Court.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Amol
Page 6 of 6
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
Checking your session…