Shri Krishna Hindu Merchants Club v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Affidavit in reply is filed by Dr. Chetna Nitil K, Medical Officer, Health Department of respondent no.1. In para (e) of the affidavit in reply it is stated that the respondents have acted in accordance with law and have taken timely action on the…
Judgment
Shri Krishna Hindu Merchants Club and another ... Petitioners Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others ... Respondents Shri H. Jariwala for the petitioner for the Petitioners Shri Shekhar Ingawle, AGP for respondents 5 to 10 Shri Atul Rajadhyaksha i/by Natgendra Dube for Respondent No.1 Shri K. K. Sanghvi for BMC CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 1st December, 2009. P. C.
In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the alleged inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 9 to take action against Shree Kunthu Impex Pvt. Ltd.- respondent- 11 herein who, according the petitioners, has occupied a portion of premises of the petitioners for the purpose of running restaurant by name Dilli Gate, without licence and without complying with the terms and conditions of the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Bombay Police Act,
1951. 2
Affidavit in reply is filed by Dr. Chetna Nitil K, Medical Officer, Health Department of respondent no.1. In para (e) of the affidavit in reply it is stated that the respondents have acted in accordance with law and have taken timely action on the complaints made by the petitioners and the eating house activity is closed as on today. It is further stated that the application made by respondent- 11 for reinstatement of licence is also rejected by order dated 16.6.2009. In view of this, the petition does not survive and it is disposed of .
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (RANJANA DESAI, J.) jpc/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 01 Dec 2009. The bench was MRIDULA BHATKAR, RANJANA DESAI.
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.