Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kashyap Chandulal Shah And Anr vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2178 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2178 Bom
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Kashyap Chandulal Shah And Anr vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 26 February, 2026

Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:9835
                                                                                           P6. AOST-5476-2026.odt


       Amberkar

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                  APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 5476 OF 2026
                                                   WITH
                                 INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5477 OF 2026

                  Kashyap Chandulal Shah & Anr.                                            Appellants
                                                                                        .. (Org. Plaintiffs)
                            Versus
                  The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai                              Respondent
                                                                                        .. (Org. Defendant)
                                            ....................
                   Mr. Dhananjay R. Singh i/by Mr. Sancchit M. Singh, Advocates for
                    Appellants
                                                            ...................
                                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                                           DATE          : FEBRUARY 26, 2026
                  P. C.:

1. Not on board. Mentioned by way of filing a praecipe dated

26.02.2026.

2. Heard Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Appellants - Org.

Plaintiffs.

3. Plaintiffs have received a statutory notice dated 25.11.2025

(appended at page Nos. 79-80 of the Appeal from Order), inter alia,

alleging that Plaintiffs have carried out unauthorized construction.

Notice is given under Section 53(1) r/w Section 52(1)(b) of the

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. As usual said

notice is once again a standard notice which does not specifically point

out unauthorized construction. What is intriguing is the fact that there

1 of 4

P6. AOST-5476-2026.odt

is mention of certain unauthorized constructions i.e. covering the

terrace which is alleged to be unauthorized and unauthorized

conversion of part living room into kitchen, kitchen into living room

and bedroom into dining room. Plan undoubtedly is very old rather

much prior to the datum line itself. Since inception of construction,

Suit flat is situated on the third floor of an ownership building in Juhu.

An elaborate reply has been given by Plaintiffs which is appended at

pg. Nos. 81-98 of the Appeal from Order. Mr. Singh has drawn my

attention to the same.

4. Plaintiffs have referred to the BMC approved sanctioned plan as

far back as in 1988 details of which are given along with Occupation

Certificate and Building Completion Certificate. He has also referred

to tenancy agreement by virtue of which Plaintiffs were inducted in

the subject premises. Mr. Singh has drawn my attention to the various

clauses in the agreement which prima facie preclude and prohibit the

Plaintiffs from carrying out any construction much less the

construction which is alleged to be unauthorized in the subject

premises. Grounds which are stated in the reply have not at all been

considered while passing the impugned order which is an ad-interim

order. What is stated therein is that as no justification is seen in the

pleadings about nullity of impugned notice. However since the

impugned order is sans reasons, it does not stand to scrutiny. Needless

2 of 4

P6. AOST-5476-2026.odt

to state that this Court has not expressed any imprimatur on the merits

of Plaintiff's case at all and that will be the discretion of the learned

Trial Court as and when it decides Notice of Motion.

5. Hence Corporation is directed not to take any coercive steps in

furtherance of the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 in the

meanwhile.

6. Learned Trial Court is requested by this Court to hear the Notice

of Motion finally which was filed as draft Notice of Motion after

numbering the same and after pleadings are completed by the parties

therein and considering the reply dated 25.12.2025 along with all

documentary evidence appended thereto in accordance with law and

pass a reasoned speaking order.

7. All contentions of Plaintiffs and Corporation are expressly kept

open.

8. No purpose will be served by issuing notice and keeping the

present Appeal from Order pending in this Court in view of the

aforesaid observations and findings.

9. Appeal from Order is allowed and disposed in the above terms.

Pending Interim Application is also disposed.

3 of 4

P6. AOST-5476-2026.odt

10. All Parties to act on a sever copy of this order downloaded from

the Bombay High Court website.

Amberkar                                               [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]



           RAVINDRA MOHAN

           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.02.26
                      14:57:27
                      +0530




                                                                                       4 of 4




 

 
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 : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter