A.L. RANJANE versus RAVINDRA ISHWARDAS SETHNA AND ORS.

A.L. RANJANE versus RAVINDRA ISHWARDAS SETHNA AND ORS.

The structure put up by appellant does not qualify as ejusdem generis with items listed in Section 313(l)(a), being permanent and embedded; hence Commissioner had no authority to grant permission and any licence granted was illegal. Mandatory injunction for removal was proper and suit was not barred by limitation.

Parties
Appellant: A.L. Ranjane; Respondent No. 1: Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna; Respondent No. 2: Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay; Respondent No. 3: Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section 313 Interpretation, Unauthorized Construction, Limitation, Mandatory and Permanent Injunction
Municipal Law Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section 313 Interpretation Unauthorized Construction Limitation Mandatory and Permanent Injunction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.L. Ranjane

Appellant

Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna

Respondent No. 1

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Respondent No. 2

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 313 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act permits the grant of licence for an embedded tea stall structure
  2. 2 Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Section 527 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The structure put up by appellant does not qualify as ejusdem generis with items listed in Section 313(l)(a), being permanent and embedded; hence Commissioner had no authority to grant permission and any licence granted was illegal. Mandatory injunction for removal was proper and suit was not barred by limitation.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant granted time until 31st January, 2003 to remove structure, subject to filing undertaking within three weeks.
  • Mandatory injunction for removal of the tea stall upheld.