The Bombay high court refused to grant Sonu Sood any relief in his plea for the structural changes he made to his residential building at Juhu in Bombay and converted into a hotel. The court on January 21 said that the actor had come to court with “unclean hands” to seek its protection from civic action against “illegal alterations” to a six-storey building which he was using as a hotel. Sonu’s plea for relief on grounds of equity was, therefore, found to be without merit. Equity, in law, is concerned with fairness and justice granted by directing the other side to abide by orders when ordinary legal remedies, including awarding damages, may be inadequate. Justice P.K. Chauhan said, “There is no question of equity being granted to appellants (Sonu and his wife) as they have approached court with unclean hands, seeking relief of temporary injunction against respondents by repeatedly committing breach of provisions” of civic law and Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
The BMC had sought dismissal of the actor’s plea and had submitted that his plea for protection against demolition of his Juhu (Bombay) property was a “mala fide attempt and an abuse of process” to protect “an ex-facie illegal commercial hotel which has been constructed and modified by him contrary to the sanctioned building plan”. The BMC told the court that the hotel was in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and was operating without a licence.
The judge accepted BMC’s submission that Sonu was a “habitual offender”. It said that it can be seen that Sood did not discontinue carrying out additions and alterations but went on re-erecting the same in the absence of authorisation. The judge observed, “Since there is no application seeking permission, there is no question of retaining the offending structure.” The January 21 order held Sonu Sood’s appeal to be devoid of merits and dismissed the same. The actor had challenged a city civil court order which had in December 2020 declined him interim relief against an October 2020 notice issued by BMC to remove the unauthorised development in the building. The high court said that the BMC can act on the notice and that Sonu cannot resort to section 43 of the MRTP Act.