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 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Skf India Limited, Through Mrs. Reni ... vs Municipal Corporation Of City Of Pimpri ... on 17 March, 2026

                Digitally signed
    ARUNA       by ARUNA
                SANDEEP                             1/2                              16.AO102.2019.DOC
    SANDEEP     TALWALKAR
    TALWALKAR   Date: 2026.03.18
                18:22:18 +0530



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 102 OF 2019
                                                 WITH
                                   APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 101 OF 2019

SKF India Limited.                                                  ...Appellant.
            Versus
Municipal Corporation of City of
Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune & Ors.                                       ...Respondents.
                                                 -----
Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Aniket Kanawade, Advocate for Appellant.
None for the Respondents.

                                                 -----

                                             CORAM :          ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                             DATE         :   17th MARCH 2026

P.C.


1           Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Appellant today who

points out that Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 12 th May, 2014 by which the Appellant's Suit has been dismissed with a direction that the plaint be returned with direction that the same be filed before the Small Causes Court under Section 406 read with Section 2(29) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act(for short "MMC Act").

2. It is the contention of Mr. Deshmukh that the impugned order is wrong and perverse because the Appellant(Plaintiff) has not challenged the computation but has challenged the very validity of the notices and therefore, such declaration could only be granted by the Civil Court and not the remedy i.e. prescribed under Section 406 read with Section 2(29) of the MMC Act.



Talwalkar


       ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026                               ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:42:15 :::
                                          2/2                            16.AO102.2019.DOC



3. I would like to hear the Respondent-Corporation in this regard since today none is present on behalf of the Respondent- Corporation and the record shows that the Respondent-Corporation has been appearing in the matter. I therefore, by standing the matter over wish to give Respondent - Corporation one opportunity to appear. Therefore, stand over to 1st April, 2026.

4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant shall intimate to the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent - Corporation the next date of hearing.

5. It is made clear that if on the next date none appears on behalf of Respondent - Corporation, the Court shall proceed to take Appeal from Orders for hearing.

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.] Talwalkar ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:42:15 :::