THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI vs MRS. BHARTI H KAMAT — IA/3529/2026
Case under Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010094032026
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
IA/5382/2026
Filing Date
23-02-2026
Registration No
IA/3529/2026
Registration Date
06-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Bench Type
Single
Category
ELECTION ( 12 )
Sub-Category
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
Adv. KOMAL PUNJABI BMC
ASSISTANT ENGINEER MAINTENANCE P/NORTH
Respondent(s)
MRS. BHARTI H KAMAT
MR. TARUN MAINIKCHAND JAIN
MRS. KAMAL U NAIK
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
Summary of IA/3529/2026 Case: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Mrs. Bharti H. Kamat and Others Court: Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Outcome: Case adjourned to June 12, 2026. The court issued notice to respondents (shopkeepers) and directed them to visit 12 alternate accommodation sites offered by the Corporation within four weeks, then file objections. Respondents must be served case documents immediately. The court acknowledged the public interest in road widening but mandated shopkeeper rehabilitation before any demolition, emphasizing that plaintiffs will be heard and their livelihood concerns considered alongside public needs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of IA/3529/2026 Case: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Mrs. Bharti H. Kamat and Others Court: Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Outcome: Case adjourned to June 12, 2026. The court issued notice to respondents (shopkeepers) and directed them to visit 12 alternate accommodation sites offered by the Corporation within four weeks, then file objections. Respondents must be served case documents immediately. The court acknowledged the public interest in road widening but mandated shopkeeper rehabilitation before any demolition, emphasizing that plaintiffs will be heard and their livelihood concerns considered alongside public needs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts