IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY S.C. ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005through their Architects applied for renovation and alteration inthe premises acquired by them and the said plans wereapproved by Architect to Government by his letter dated17.11.1968. Under the plans approved by Architect toGovernment on 5.11.1968 interalia the use of garages for thepurposes of kitchen was approved and the enclosure of frontopen space with awning was also approved. By letter dated29.5.1978 addressed by Architect to Government to the SoonaMahal CHS Ltd., the permission was granted on 20.06.1957 forcovering the front open space that the awning was purported tobe revoked and further the Government Architect requesteddefendant to take appropriate action. By letter dated 21.7.1978addressed by the defendant to the Collector, the defendantstated that plaintiff made representation to the DeputyMunicipal Commissioner and as he was proceeding on leave,the matter could be taken up after he resumed duties. On17.10.1980 defendant again issued notice U/Sec. 351 of MMCAct in respect of awning alleging that the same was liable to beremoved. The plaintiff filed suit no. 1530/1983 and obtained anorder of injunction against the defendant restraining them fromremoving or pulling down the awning and enclosure of openspace.On 11.9.1984, the Government Architect by letterbearing no. BBRS/203/22/50 once again granted permission forthe said awning and withdrew the letter of revocation dated29.5.1978. On 04.9.1985 defendant granted permission toplaintiff to carry out repairs to the existing metal awning as it
5SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005deteriorated and corroded due to environmental effects. Inpursuance of grant of permission, plaintiff withdrew the abovesaid suit No. 1530/1983 and on 8.11.1985 paid necessary feesand deposits towards the repair charges. On 10.3.1971defendant issued the Circular setting guidelines for permissionfor covering of front and/or side open spaces for restaurantsand the said guidelines inter alia provided that the covering ofthe roof shall have sufficient gradient so as to assure effectivedrainage of water and shall be strong enough to enable aperson to sweep it every day. Hence, the plaintiff covered theopen space awning by strong G.I. Corrugated sheets.5. On 29.03.1994 the plaintiff received yet another noticeu/sec. 351 of MMC Act from the defendant in respect of awning.The plaintiff filed suit no. 1282/1995 in this Court and took outNotice of Motion No 1492/1995. The said Notice of Motion wasdismissed on 9.10.1995. The plaintiff filed A.O. No. 1265/1995against the said order of dismissal in respect of awning. Theappeal was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court and an interimorder of statusquo was passed in respect of the awning. Statusquoorder is as follows:“Admitted. Status quo in all respect to be maintainedtill further orders. Appellant is restrained frommaking additions, alterations and renovations in thedisputed structure.”
Page 1 and 2: 1SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005IN THE COU
Page 3: 3SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005addressed
Page 7 and 8: 7SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005arrears of
Page 9 and 10: 9SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005impugned n
Page 11 and 12: 11SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005Hence, pr
Page 13 and 14: 13SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005addressed
Page 15 and 16: 15SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005alteratio
Page 17 and 18: 17SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005parties i
Page 19 and 20: 19SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005by Archit
Page 21 and 22: 21SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005certifica
Page 23 and 24: 23SC Suit No. 2572 of 200524. The e
Page 25 and 26: 25SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005order is
Page 27 and 28: 27SC Suit No. 2572 of 20054.4.1995)
Page 29 and 30: 29SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005of quasi
Page 31 and 32: 31SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005on the pa

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY S.C. ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?