HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Ramesh Shankarlal Bhandari vs Pune Cantonment Board, a Board

Second Appeal No 155 of 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO 296 of 2011 On 16 April 2024

Hon'ble Judges: Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Case Type: Second Appeal

Final Decision: 

Advocates: J. D. Khairnar, Mufeez Ansari, K. J. Presswalla, Tushad Kakalia, D. J. Kakalia, Paresh Patkar, Bhavna Singh Jaipuria, Mulla and Mulla & Craigie Blunt and Caroe

Citations: 
2024 0 CJ(Bom) 294

ACTS REFERRED: 
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506B
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 504
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 323
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 294
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, Section 3(2)
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, Section 3
Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 135
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106
Arms Act, 1959, Section 4
Arms Act, 1959, Section 25
Cantonments Act, 1924, Section 274
Cantonments Act, 1924, Section 185(1)

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 323, Section 504, Section 294, Section 506B - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace - Obscene acts and song.-Whoever, to the annoyance of others(B) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge(C) Arms Act, 1959, Section 4, Section 25 - Licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in certain cases - Punishment for certain offences(D) Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, Section 3, Section 3(2) - Power to make orders detaining certain persons - Power to make orders detaining certain persons(E) Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 135 - Penalty for contravention of rule or directions under sections 37, 39 or 40(F) Cantonments Act, 1924, Section 274, Section 185(1) - Appeals from executive orders - Power to stop erection or re-erection or to demolish Vide order dated 20th January 2012, Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law which reads thus: " Whether the notice issued by the Respondent under section 185(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 dated 24 th June, 2002 was beyond period of limitation ?" FACTUAL MATRIX: For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

Judgement Text

1. The Appeal is at the instance of original plaintiff who is dissatisfied by the judgment dated 25 th November 2010 passed by the Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.602/2007 reversing the judgment and decree dated 7th October, 2006 passed in Regular Civil Suit No 781 of 2004 granting permanent injunction. Vide order dated 20th January 2012, Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law which reads thus:

" Whether the notice issued by the Respondent under section 185(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 dated 24 th June, 2002 was beyond period of limitation ?"