Bombay High Court
SHREE NAMAN HOTELS PVT. LTD.versusMUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that MMRDA's action was arbitrary and illegal and therefore declined the prayer for a stay.
Summary
Shree Naman Hotels Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). The petitioner alleged that the MMRDA acted arbitrarily and illegally, seeking relief and a stay of any adverse order. The Court examined the conduct of MMRDA and concluded that it was indeed arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, the Court declined the respondent's prayer for a stay, holding that such a stay would perpetuate the illegality. The Court allowed the writ petition, directed the MMRDA to make a refund within ninety days, and ordered that the original signed judgment be kept in the records.
Issues considered
- Whether the action of MMRDA was arbitrary and illegal
- Whether a stay of the judgment should be granted
Subjects
- Arbitrariness
- Illegality
- Stay of judgment
- Refund
- Writ petition
- MMRDA
Judgment
901-oswp-3209-2017.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3209 OF 2017
Shree Naman Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development ...Respondents
Authority & Ors.
…..
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vaibhav Krishna
& Mr. Tahir Pande, i/b Juris Consillis, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nishant Chotani,
Mr. Nivit Srivastava, Ms. Sneha Patil, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Mr.
Hrishikesh Joshi & Ms. Isha Vyas, i/b Maniar Srivastava
Associates, Advocates for the Respondents.
…..
SHEPHALI
CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
SANJAY SUMAN SHYAM, J.
MORMARE
Digitally signed
by SHEPHALI
DATE: 8th APRIL 2026
SANJAY
MORMARE PC:-
Date:
2026.04.10
12:40:24 +0530
The judgment in Writ Petition is delivered in the open Court
today in the presence of the learned counsels for the respective
parties. The Writ Petition is allowed with certain observations and
directions.
2. At this stage, Mr Pravin Samdani, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the Respondent No. 1-MMRDA makes a prayer for
staying the operation and implementation of the Judgment
delivered in this Writ Petition.
Page 1 of 2
901-oswp-3209-2017.doc
3. We have already held that the action of the Respondent No.
1-MMRDA was arbitrary and illegal. Any order of stay against the
Judgment delivered today shall perpetuate illegality. Therefore,
the prayer is declined. However, we may indicate that we have
already given 90 (ninety) days time to the Respondent No. 1-
MMRDA to make refund as applicable.
4. Let the original signed judgment be kept in the records.
(SUMAN SHYAM, J) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
{
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.