Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Bombay High Court

Puravankara Limited Limited vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 25 January, 2021

Bench: R. D. Dhanuka, V. G. Bisht

                                                        (29) WP 19-21

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Amk
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2021

      Puravankara Ltd.                                       .. Petitioner
           Vs.
      Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr.             .. Respondents


      Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Mr.
      Denzil Arambhon, Ms. Ria Nandan i/b M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for
      the Petitioner.
      Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Pallavi Thakar i/b Ms.
      Aruna Savla for the Respondents-MCGM.

                        CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA & V. G. BISHT, JJ.

DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2021.

P. C. :

1. Dr. Sathe, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the order passed by this Court on 03.07.2020 in Writ Petition-LD-VC No. 108 of 2020 filed by Macrotech Developers Ltd.

against Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. He submits that the issues involved in that Petition are identical to the issues in this Petition. Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits that the Corporation had not filed affidavit-in- reply when the order dated 03.07.2020 was passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition. He tenders a copy of the reply in this Petition.

2. Considering the fact that the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions being identical, we are inclined to pass the identical order matter.

3. Rule. Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation waives services.

4. There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (c) on the 1/2 (29) WP 19-21 condition that the Petitioner would deposit 50% of the development charges demanded by the Municipal Corporation on commercial wing quantified at Rs.1,64,40,316.67/- at page 35 of the Writ Petition within one week from today.

5. The Respondents are restrained from taking coercive action in respect of impugned demand notice insofar as the demand in respect of commercial wing is concerned. The Respondents shall not refuse to grant further permission and the occupation certificate if the aforesaid amount is paid by the Petitioner.

6. The Respondents shall process the application for approvals made by the Petitioner for development of the said property including commencement certificate for the commercial wings in accordance with provisions of D. C. Regulation and shall not withhold the permission on the basis of original demand.

7. To be heard with WP-LD-VC No. 108 of 2020.

8. The Respondents would be at liberty to apply for expeditious hearing of the Writ Petitions before the Division Bench having assigned these matters.

9. Affidavit-in-rejoinder, if any shall be filed within two weeks with a copy to be served on the Respondents' Advocate.

      [V. G. BISHT, J.]                         [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]

           Digitally signed
 Arjun     by Arjun M.
           Kadam
 M.        Date:
           2021.01.27
 Kadam     16:28:42
           +0530




                                                                      2/2