9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Determination of limitation period for filing suits challenging demolition orders under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
Analysis: 1. Facts: The appeals were against judgments dismissing suits challenging show-cause notices for unauthorized extensions issued under the BMC Act. Orders were passed directing removal of structures, leading to suits being filed and dismissed as time-barred. 2. Arguments: Appellants argued suits were within limitation until orders were implemented. Cited Gujarat High Court judgment for support. Corporation opposed, stating cause of action arose when orders were passed. 3. Analysis of Submission: The Deputy Municipal Commissioner's orders on 2nd September 1994 directed immediate removal of structures. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the threat was clear and effective, triggering the cause of action for filing suits. 4. Interpretation of Statute: The judge rejected reliance on the Gujarat High Court judgment, emphasizing the starting point of limitation as the date of cause of action. Quoted statutory provisions and legal principles to support the dismissal of suits as time-barred. 5. Precedent and Legal Principles: Referred to a local judgment emphasizing effective infringement of legal rights for a cause of action to arise. Applied principles to the case, stating the cause of action was the date of the removal orders, not their execution. 6. Conclusion: The judge upheld the trial court's decision, finding no fault in dismissing the suits as time-barred. Both appeals were dismissed with no costs awarded. By analyzing the facts, arguments, legal interpretations, precedents, and conclusions, the court established that the cause of action for filing suits challenging the demolition orders under the BMC Act arose on the date of the orders, rendering the suits time-barred. The judgment emphasized clear and effective threats as triggers for cause of action, rejecting arguments for uncertainty in limitation periods.
|
