Twitter
Advertisement

‘Civil court’ BMC gets earful from Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court on Monday rapped the ‘discriminating’ BMC for assuming the role of a quasi-judicial authority and acting like a civil court.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

TRENDING NOW

 

The Bombay High Court on Monday rapped the ‘discriminating’ BMC for assuming the role of a quasi-judicial authority and acting like a civil court. 


A division bench of justices SA Bobade and Mridula Bhatkar was hearing a petition filed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Pharmaceuticals Limited, challenging BMC’s 2009 order to revoke permission given to the company to transfer and develop a portion of a plot leased by it at Worli. GSK claimed that the order was passed without giving personal hearing. 


Aspi Chenoy, counsel for GSK, said after the pharmaceutical firm was given a notice by the BMC that it was reconsidering withdrawal of its permission, GSK asked for a personal hearing. “But the BMC gave a hearing only to the other party, I-Ven Realty,” argued Chenoy. 


Bobade asked how BMC could act like a civil court. “Once you have assumed that you have powers to decide without giving a hearing to the party, how can you then discriminate by hearing only one party? This is as if the commissioner has all the powers of a court,” he remarked. 


GSK had leased two plots of 24,528sqm-land from the BMC in November 1967, stated its petition. On August 30, 2004, then assistant municipal commissioner (estates) granted sub-division of the plot by way of mortgage at a 7% premium charge. GSK then transferred a portion of the land to I-Ven Realty for development at Rs107.60 crore. At the time, the pharmaceutical company had paid Rs7.53 crore as premium to the BMC. A few years later, the civic body issued a notice to the GSK, stating that the premium has been increased by 50%. The firm then challenged it before the Bombay high court, which stayed the notice.  


BMC counsel Anil Sakhre told the court that it had revoked the order since the earlier decision in 2004 was not in accordance with its rules. 


The petition will come up for hearing on February 6.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement