Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12979 Bom
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2022
07-SA-392-2013.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.392 OF 2013
ARJUN
VITTHAL Shri. Anil Trilokchand Grover ...Appellant
KUDHEKAR
Versus
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2022.12.13
18:58:39 +0530
City & Industrial Development ...Respondents
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. B. K. Raje, for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni a/w Akanksha Helaskar, for
Respondent No. 1 [CIDCO].
Mr. Tejas Dande, for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2022
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. B. K. Raje, learned counsel appearing for
Appellant, Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Tejas Dande, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.
2. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:
i) Whether the fnding recorded by the Courts below that the entire construction of the building in
07-SA-392-2013.doc
question is contrary to the sanctioned plan is correct?
ii) Whether the impugned Judgments and Decrees of both the Courts are perverse when additional issue is specifcally framed by the learned Trial Court to the effect that whether the Plaintiff has carried out the construction in conformity with Government Notifcation dated 24th September, 1991 and the same has not been discussed by both the Courts and, therefore, the impugned Judgments and Decrees are perverse?
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!