Bombay High Court · 2026-06-08
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI vs MAHARASHTRA MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS
- Citation / case number
- WP/1526/2011
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI
- Respondent
- MAHARASHTRA MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS
Judgment text excerpt
10-WP-1526-2011.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1526 OF 2011 Varsha The Board of Trustees of the ] Port of Mumbai ] A Statutory Corporation ] having its Registered office at ] Vijay Deep, Shoorji Vallabhdas ] Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001. ] … Petitioner V/s 1. Maharashtra Minerals ] VARSHA Corporation Limited, ] VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by Industrial Assurance Building, ] VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.06.08 17:50:17 +0530 5th floor, Churchgate, ] Mumbai – 400 020. ] 2. M/s. Martek Engineering Works ] 817, Raheja Chambers, 213 ] Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ] 3. The Estate Officer, ] Mumbai Port Trust, 2nd floor, ] Railway Manager’s Office Building] Ramjibhai Kamani Road, Ballard ] Estate, Mumbai – 400 001. ] … Respondents CORAM : GAURI GODSE J RESERVED ON : 26th MARCH 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 8th JUNE 2026 Mr. Dhruva Gandhi a/w. Ms. Nina Motiwalla, Ms. Janhavi Kandekar, 1/17 10-WP-1526-2011.doc Ms. Anjali Kotecha i/b. Motiwalla and Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. Rohan Savant, Mr. Aagam Mehta, Mr. Vipul Patel i/b. Haresh Mehta and Co., for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for Respondent No.2. JUDGMENT :- 1. This petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the City Civil Court, allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.1 against the order of eviction and compensation passed by the Estate Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for the eviction of the respondents and compensation towards arrears of rent. The Estate Officer had allowed the application for eviction against both the respondents under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (‘said Act’). 2. The Estate Officer had passed an order directing payment of compensation under sub-section (2) an