Bombay High Court
Deesha Leasecon Pvt Ltd And Anr vs The Municipal Corporation For Greater ... on 5 December, 2018
Author: K.R.Shriram
Bench: K.R.Shriram
1/4 65.suit111.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.111 OF 2017
Deesha Leasecon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. )....Plaintiffs
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.)....Defendants
----
Mr.Navroz Seervai, senior Advocate a/w Mr.Sarosh Bharucha and Ms.Shreya Gupta for plaintiffs.
Mr.Dadasaheb Shingade for defendant nos.1 to 3 (MCGM). Mr.H.B.Takke, AGP for defendant no.4.
----
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 5.12.2018 P.C.:-
1. Heard the counsel. The following issues are framed.
ISSUES (1) Whether defendant nos.1 to 3 prove that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and hence requires to be rejected ?
(2) If answer to issue no.1 is in the negative, whether defendant nos.1 to 3 prove that notice under section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1881 (MMC Act) was mandatory and hence the suit has to be dismissed ?
(3) Whether defendant nos.1 to 3 prove that the present suit is not maintainable on account of the fact that : (i) KJ ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:13:37 ::: 2/4 65.suit111.17.doc plaintiffs have not sought a declaration that they are entitled to display of hoardings/advertisements ; and (ii) that plaintiffs have not sought a declaration that defendant no.1 should grant license/permissions for display of hoardings/advertisements ? (4) Whether plaintiffs prove by granting plaintiffs' permission as a "special case", the provisions of Section 328 and 328A of the MMC Act were dispensed with by defendant nos.1 to 3 ?
(5) Whether plaintiffs prove by granting plaintiffs' permission to operate and advertise on the VMS Boards as a "special case" the provisions of the policy guidelines on the grant of permission for display of Sky-signs and advertisement, 2008 were dispensed with by defendant nos.1 to 3 ?
(6) Whether plaintiffs prove that the letter dated November, 25, 2016 and order dated January 8, 2018 are illegal, bad in law and void ?
(7) Whether plaintiffs prove that action of defendant nos.1 to 3 in defacing and vandalizing the VMS Boards on November 30, 2016 was illegal ?
KJ
::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:13:37 :::
3/4 65.suit111.17.doc
(8) Whether plaintiffs prove defendant nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay to plaintiffs damages in the amount of Rs.1,09,00,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of payment/realization ? (9) What decree ? What order ?
2. Parties are further directed as under :-
(a) File respective affidavit of documents and serve a copy thereof on the other side on or before 15.12.2018 ;
(b) On or before 22.12.2018 inspection to be given and Statement of admission and denial with reasons for denial to be exchanged ;
(c) Plaintiffs to file list of witnesses, affidavit in lieu of examination in chief together with compilation of documents and serve a copy thereof upon defendants by 17.1.2019.
3 It is made clear that if affidavits of documents are not filed and inspection given, parties will not be permitted to rely upon any documents, copies whereof are not annexed to the plaint and/or written statement or mentioned in the list of documents annexed to the plaint/written statement. This however, shall not prevent a party from confronting the witness of the other with any document.
If statements of admission and denial are not given within the time prescribed, parties shall be deemed to have admitted the KJ ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:13:37 ::: 4/4 65.suit111.17.doc existence of all the documents relied upon by the other side. 4 Stand over to 23.1.2019 for marking of documents/recording of evidence at which time plaintiff's 1st witness shall remain present in court.
(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) KJ ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:13:37 :::