Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vijaykumar Angrish And Others vs The Municipal Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 13133 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13133 Bom
Judgement Date : 16 December, 2022

Bombay High Court
Vijaykumar Angrish And Others vs The Municipal Corporation on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
P.H. Jayani                                            30 AO1098.2022.doc

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1098 OF 2022
                                      WITH
                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20369 OF 2022
                                       IN
                       APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1098 OF 2022

Vijaykumar Angrish and ors.                           .... Appellants
           v/s.
The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and ors.                                     .... Respondents

Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay a/w. Mr. Vijay Jha, Mr. Suhail
Singh, Mr. Aakash Mishra, Mr. Hemang Upadhyay
i/b. Res Juris for the Appellants.
Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar for Respondent No.1 - MCGM.
Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w. Gaurangi Patil and Mr. Parth Mehta
i/b. GP and Associates for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Swapnil Bangur, Mr. Aditya Miskita, Ms. Neha Mehta,
Ms. Aayushi Gohil i/b. M/s. M.T. Miskita and Co. for Respondent No.3.

                               CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 16th DECEMBER, 2022.

P. C. :-

. Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks leave to file additional

affidavit. Leave is granted. To be filed in the Registry within a period of

one week.

2. The Appellant herein has challenged the order dated 25/11/2022

passed by the learned City Civil Court, Borivali Div., Dindoshi, Mumbai

dismissing the Notice of Motion No.2188/2022 in L.C. Suit

No.1576/2022.

P.H. Jayani 30 AO1098.2022.doc

3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for

the Respondents. I have perused the records and considered the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

4. The Appellants herein have filed a suit challenging the notice dated

01/07/2022 issued by the Corporation under section 354 of MMC Act,

1888. The records prima facie indicate that the occupants of the building

had agreed for re-development. However, there was dispute amongst the

members regarding validity of the re-development agreement. The

Appellants who are the members of the society as well as the developer

has filed suits which relate to the re-development agreement. It is stated

that the said suits are pending before this Court. During the pendency of

the said suits, the Corporation issued notice under section 354 of MMC

Act.

5. The notice under section 354 was issued on the basis of the report

submitted by the Respondent No.2 - Society classifying the structure as

C-1 category. The Appellant had also submitted a structural report which

classifies the structure in C-2B category. Since the validity of the said

report was of one year, the Appellant submitted 2 nd report dated

19/08/2022, which once again classified the building into C-2B category.

P.H. Jayani 30 AO1098.2022.doc

The learned Judge has observed that in the 2 nd report, measurement of

ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test is shown as 2.10 k.m./sec. The Trial Court

therefore inferred that there is no conflict between both the reports.

6. As noted above, in the 2nd report dated 19/08/2022, for the reasons

stated, the structure was classified as C-2B category. The Trial Court

could not have drawn inference on the basis of some random observations

in the report and substituted its own view for that of technically qualified

experts. Considering that both the reports have given conflicting findings

viz. that the building is in C-1 category and the 2 nd report stating that it is

in C-2B category, in my considered view, it is necessary to refer the matter

to the TAC Committee. The TAC shall prepare a report after carrying out

usual inspection and upon conducting specific tests as per the judgment of

the Division Bench of this Court in Original Side Writ Petition (L)

No.1135/2014 dated 23/06/2014 and upon following the guidelines of

the Corporation. The TAC report shall be submitted within four weeks

from the date of the order. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to

continue till the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the Petitioner

states that undertaking given earlier shall continue till the next date.

7. Stand over to 20/01/2023.


       Digitally
       signed by                                                 (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
PREETI PREETI
       JAYANI
               
H      Date:
JAYANI 2022.12.20
       17:17:10
       +0530

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter