1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1078 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1325 OF 2010 Mrs. Kanta Kripalani ...Appellant. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. Mr. Anil C. Singh i/by D.R.Shah, advs., for the Appellants. Mr. J.Xavier a/w Smt.K.K.Soran, advs., for the respondent/M.C.G.M. Mr. Rajesh B. Tawde, Jr. Eng. HW/BF-MCGM present in Court. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 The grievance of the appellant in the present proceedings is that no ad-interim relief has been granted by the trial Court and therefore, his suit structure would be demolished. It is contended that the notice issued u/s 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 does not indicate the exact nature of the offending structure. The learned advocate for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation states on instructions from Shri Rajesh B. Tawde, Junior Engineer (Buildings & Factory), H-Ward, who is present in Court, that the notice u/s 53(1) issued on 12.6.2009 will be withdrawn by the Corporation with liberty to the Corporation to take such steps as are necessary in accordance with law against the offending structure. The learned 2 advocate also states that the structure will not be demolished till them 2 This statement of the learned advocate for the Corporation is accepted. 3 Appeal from Order is disposed off accordingly, with liberty as prayed for. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1079 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1326 OF 2010 Lata C. Sartendel ...Appellant. v. The M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. Mr. Anil C. Singh i/by D.R.Shah, advs., for the Appellants. Mr. J.Xavier a/w Smt.K.K.Soran, advs., for the respondent/M.C.G.M. Mr. Rajesh B. Tawde, Jr. Eng. HW/BF-MCGM present in Court. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 The grievance of the appellant in the present proceedings is that no ad-interim relief has been granted by the trial Court and therefore, his suit structure may be demolished. It is contended that the notice issued u/s 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 does not indicate the exact nature of the offending structure. The learned advocate for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation states on instructions from Shri Rajesh B. Tawde, Junior Engineer (Buildings & Factory), H-Ward, who is present in Court, that the notice u/s 53(1) issued on 12.6.2009 will be withdrawn by the Corporation with liberty to the Corporation to take such steps as are necessary in accordance with law against the offending structure. The learned 4 advocate also states that the structure will not be demolished till them 2 This statement of the learned advocate for the Corporation is accepted. 3 Appeal from Order is disposed off accordingly, with liberty as prayed for. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1068 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1306 OF 2010 Farah S. Jaffar and Anr. ...Appellants. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. Mr. Anil C. Singh i/by D.R.Shah, advs., for the Appellants. Mr. J.Xavier a/w Smt.K.K.Soran, advs., for the respondent/M.C.G.M. Mr. Rajesh B. Tawde, Jr. Eng. HW/BF-MCGM present in Court. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 The grievance of the appellants in the present proceedings is that no ad-interim relief has been granted by the trial Court and therefore, his suit structure would be demolished. It is contended that the notice issued u/s 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 does not indicate the exact nature of the offending structure. The learned advocate for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation states on instructions from Shri Rajesh B. Tawde, Junior Engineer (Buildings & Factory), H-Ward, who is present in Court, that the notice u/s 53(1) issued on 12.6.2009 will be withdrawn by the Corporation with liberty to the Corporation to take such steps as are necessary in 6 accordance with law against the offending structure. The learned advocate also states that the structure will not be demolished till them 2 This statement of the learned advocate for the Corporation is accepted. 3 Appeal from Order is disposed off accordingly, with liberty as prayed for. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1079 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1326 OF 2010 ...Appellant. v. ...Respondent. Mr. adv., for the Appellant. Mr. adv., for the respondent. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.: 1