The Metropolitan Commissioner, Mumbai & Ors. v. Mr. Dungarmal G. Kawadia
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. As the matter was called out, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, upon instructions, states that the structure covered by this notice, a copy of which is at page 51 Exhibit K to the petition is since been demolished. Statement made…
Judgment
Mr. Dungarmal G. Kawadia & Another ...Respondents Mr. Kuldip Patil for Applicants. Mr. Anand Sangvikar i/b. Anjali Awasthi for the Respondent No.1. Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for State, Respondent No.2 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 4th JULY, 2011. P.C.
Heard.
Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith.
By consent, taken up for hearing.
Respondent No.1 filed application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. in regard to the structure described as Shop No.2 admeasuring about 900 sq.ft situated at plot No.81/5 Oonawala Compound, CTS No.58, 2 Village Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Subarban District, S.G.Barve Marg, Kurla (East), Mumbai 400 070.
According to the respondent No.1, the dispute arose in respect of the possession of the said structure and that is how an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was put up before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla Mumbai.
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by Order dated 25th November, 2009 called upon the parties to put up their written statements and make their respective claims in respect of factual matters concerning the possession of the said structure. The petitioners have challenged this notice and petitioners have prayed for diverse reliefs.
As the matter was called out, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, upon instructions, states that the structure covered by this notice, a copy of which is at page 51 Exhibit K to the petition is since been demolished. Statement made by the Counsel for the respondent no.1 is accepted. If the structure in respect of which proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. came to be initiated has since been demolished, the said proceeding has come to and end. In view of this, I am inclined to set aside this order dated 25th November, 2009. Hence following order is passed. 3 ORDER i) The Order passed in C.C.No.4/N/2009 dated 25th November, 2009, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla. Mumbai is quashed and set aside. The complaint C.C.No. 4/N/2009 is quashed and set aside.
(R.Y.GANOO, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 145.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 04 Jul 2011. The bench was R Y GANOO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.