[LIVE-UPDATES] Hearing On Kangana Ranaut's Plea Against Demolition of Her Office Building

Raut's lawyer, Pradeep J Torat, submits that Kangana's name was not referred to by his client.

J Kathawalla : Can we record the statement that you(Raut) have not called the petitioner 'haramkhor'?

I will file an affidavit tomorrow, Torat says.

Court asks Saraf to play the video clip containing the statement of Sanjay Raut

As regards 'malice-in-fact', Saraf submits that Kangana had made certain statements against the government, and one of her tweets elicited a strong response from Sanjay Raut

Raut said that Kangana should be taught a lesson : Saraf, Kangana's lawyer.

If authorities are acting with high-handedness and in violation of statutory provisions and court directives, there is 'malice in law', irrespective of the intention of the authorites : Saraf, Kangana's lawyer.

Saraf submits that his next argument is on the point of "mala-fides'.

There are "malice-in-law" and "malice-in-fact" involved in the case : Saraf, Kangana's lawyer.

BMC's lawyer Chinoy submits that the SC judgment is in the context of Section 351 and not Section 354A of the BMC Act.

Saraf submits that the SC has said that there should be 7 days notice for demolition, that photographs should be annexed to the notice etc and that the violation of these procedural guidelines will make the demolition illegal.

The judgment referred to is the 2019 SC verdict in MCGM v. Sunbeam High Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. 

The Court had suggested techniques like geo-mapping to ascertain such claims - Saraf reads out from the judgment.

BMC's lawyer Chinoy interrupts and asks Saraf to read another paragraph from the judgment. Saraf reads that paragraph in which Court observed that in cases on unauthorized construction people raise the claim that the building had been in existence long ago.