Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. At the same time, without prejudice to their contentions on merits, respondent No.3, in particular, volunteered that, as a mark of good gesture, the damage caused to the premises of the petitioner will be repaired. MMRDA as well as respondent No.3 gave assurance to the Court that the project will be executed strictly in terms of the contract and specified standards, and all measures and precaution will be taken to ensure that the property belonging to the petitioner or public is not damaged. Further, the said respondents also assured the Court that they will not use the Vibratory Hammer Technique to execute the work in future and the use of the said technique has already been discontinued.

On the basis of this assurance given by MMRDA and respondent No.3, the petition came to be disposed of.

4. After the disposal of the petition, the petitioner moved the Court for clarification and modification of the order dated 6th August, 2009 by way of praecipe. However, that praecipe was withdrawn on 28th August, 2009.

6 9410

6. The matter, accordingly, appeared before the Court on 5th November, 2009. However, it was noticed that the Chamber Summons filed by the Society was not circulated to the Court. The Court directed respondents No. 2 and 3 to carry out repairs where the damage has been caused "if at all" as a result of the work carried out by them in and around the damaged property.

7. In order to ascertain the correctness of the allegations made by the Society and the petitioner, the Court directed MMRDA to appoint an officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer to inspect the building and ascertain whether the alleged damage to the building has been caused as a result of work carried out by respondents No. 3 and 4 or is attributable to natural damage caused to the building, which is stated to 7 9410 be an old one. The Court, further, observed that, if the finding in the said enquiry was to be against respondents No. 3 and 4, in that event, the said respondents would be responsible to carry out repairs to the property of the private individuals in the Society. On the other hand, if the finding was to be in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4 to the effect that the damage caused to the building is not attributable to the work carried out by them by usage of Vibratory Hammer Technique, but was on account of natural damage caused to the building, the respondents would not be liable to carry out any further repairs. In that case, however, the private individuals or Society would be free to take recourse to appropriate remedy to establish their claim, and ask for relief as may be permissible by law against the said respondents. Those proceedings would be decided on their own merits, in accordance with law.

(d) We further direct the Respondent No.3 MMRDA to initially pay the expenses and charges of IIT, Mumbai as may be demanded, forthwith. However, the question as to who should finally bear the said expenses and charges will be considered at the appropriate stage while disposing of the Notice of Motion.

(e) We clarify that this arrangement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and without going into the allegations contained in the Review Petition.