Bombay High Court
Shri Jaffarali Fazalali Shaikh vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:10607
HMK 1 20. CAF-3946-2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3946 OF 2012
Digitally
IN
SAYYED signed by
SAYYED
SAEED SAEED ALI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1587 OF 2012
ALI AHMED ALI
AHMED Date:
2026.03.05
ALI 10:33:32
+0530
Jaffarali Fazalali Shaikh ....Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....Respondent
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Janardan S. Yadav i/by Mr. B. P. Shukla for the Applicant/Appellant.
Ms. Pallavi Khale i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent-MCGM.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 04th MARCH 2026 P. C. :
1. This application is taken out for stay of the impugned order dated 26th September, 2012 and notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 dated 11th June, 2008.
2. The challenge to notice under Section 351 was dismissed on the ground that the appellant did not produce any documents in support of his plea that the structure was legal. The learned Trial Court has given detailed reasons from paragraph 8 onwards for dismissing the suit.
3. Admittedly, as of today, the order of the Trial Court after considering the evidence, is against the appellant. The suit structure consist of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. (as per the appellant) which is tabela at Kandivali, Mumbai and the tabela houses various cattels which supplies milk. If the suit structure is demolished and ultimately if the appeal is ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 20:32:39 ::: HMK 2 20. CAF-3946-2012.doc allowed, then the damage caused will be irreversible. If ultimately the appeal is dismissed, then the appellant would have used the illegal structure from 11th June, 2008 though according to the appellant he has been using much before that. Therefore, to balance the equity, impugned notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the impugned order dated 11 th June, 2008 of the learned Trial Court is stayed, subject to following order :-
(a) Appellant to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per month from 01st June, 2008 to 31st March, 2026 within twelve weeks from today with the Registry of this Court.
(b) Appellant to continue deposit of Rs. 50,000/- per month from 01st April, 2026 on or before 07 th of every month with the Registry of this Court till the disposal of the appeal.
(c) Registry to invest the above amounts in the fixed deposit and the said fixed deposit to be kept alive till the disposal of the appeal and the said fixed deposit will be the subject to the outcome of the appeal.
(d) If there is default of any deposit to be made under this order, then interim relief will stand vacated.
(e) Appellant will not be granted any extension of time at any cost for making of the above deposit
(f) Appellant to inform the concerned Ward Officer about the deposit within seven days of making the deposit.
4. If the appeal is dismissed, then the Court will consider whether to hand over the amount deposited along with interest to the Corporation or for any charitable cause.
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 20:32:39 :::HMK 3 20. CAF-3946-2012.doc
5. Civil application for stay is disposed of in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2026 20:32:39 :::