Search by Keywords x
Indlaw Home                                                                                          contact us contact us | home help
 Welcome Guest | Jul 22 2014
 

HOME

Search By Databases
  

Subject Modules
  down

State Modules
  down

Legal Focus
  down

 

Login

  Subscribe


Latest Updates
Search by Databases
Indlaw Resources
Indlaw Channels

indlaw updates


Judgments

Umeed vs Umeed Health Care Society  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

Deepika vs Revenue, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2014]

Aseem Takyar vs Delhi Jal Board, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2014]

(1) Yeshwant Balwant Badave; (2) Udhavrao Ganesh Badave; (3) Dipak Mahadeo Badave; (4) Suresh Kashinath Badave; (5) Haribhau Narayan Badave; (6) Achut Raoji Badave; (7) Dinkar Bapurao Badave; (8) Gajanana Ramchandra Badave; (9) Sharad Mahadeo Badave; (10) Mahesh Vasant Badave; (11) Arun Mahadeo Badave; (12) Digambar Sakharam Badave; (13) Vilas Nana Badave; (14) Prabhakar Sakharam Badave; (15) Dnyaneshwar Yashwant Badave; (16) Prasad Narayan Badave; (17) Jayant Nagesh Badave; (18) Shrirang Gopal Badave; (19) Ramchandra Vishwanat Badave; (20) Prakash Khanderao Badave vs (1) Yogi Rajendra Shivacharya Guru Mahadling Swami Inamdar; (2) Mallakarjun Guru Mahadlingayya; (3) Gouingayya Guru Mahadilingyya; (4) Amruteshwar Vishvanath Kavade; (5) Guruling Balling Kavade (Swami); (6) Shantilal Balling Kavade (Swami) ; (7) Vijaykumar Shantilal Kavade (Swami); (8) Shivkumar Guruling Kavade (Swami); (9) Mahadeo Amruteshwar Kavade; (10) Vijaykumar Maruti Jangam (Kavade); (11) Shivling Maruti Shete; (12) Sidhaling Shavacharya Guru; (13) Chayanayya Guru Sadashivayya Mahadeokar Swami; (14) Mahalinga Guru Mahadalling (Swami); (15) Udayan Raje Bhosale  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

(1) Vivek Kaushal and others; (2) Reenu Bala and another; (3) Poonam Kumari Thakur; (5) Rakesh Chauhan; (6) Kuldeep Singh; (7) Sunil Kumar Chauhan; (8) Pawan Kumar; (9) Dishant Kumar; (10) Uma Shankar vs (1) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission; (2) State of Himachal Pradesh and another  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Dr. Vikrant Bhuria vs Satyavadi Raja Harichandra Hospital, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Shiv Shankar Tiwari vs Department of Social Welfare Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Farhat Ali Khan S/o Rafat Ali Khan vs Central Public Information Officer, Allahabad U. P. Gramin Bank, Uttar Pradesh  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Om Prakash Goyal S/o Laxmi Narayan vs Central Public Information Officer, Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Madhopur  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Moti Lal Meena vs Central Public Information Officer, Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Ajmer  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Ramdeni Singh S/o Banbari Singh vs Central Public Information Officer, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Bihar  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Rambabu Prasad S/o Butaya Mehto vs Central Public Information Officer, UCO Bank, Begusarai  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Shriram Vitthal Thakurdesai vs Central Public Information Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Maharashtra  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Rohit Gera PoAH of Sunil Mirpuri Through HOR Darius Mody vs (1) Pune Cantonment Board, Pune; (2) Chief Executive Officer, Pune Cantonment Board, Pune; (3) Appellate Authority HQ Southern Command Pune  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]
Municipalities & Local Governments - Cantonments Act, 2006, ss.248, 235 (2) (a) and 340 - Constitution of India, 1950, art.226 - Revised Land Policy, 1995- By the Petition u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenged notice dt. 21-5-2009 issued by respondent No.1/Cantonment Board issued u/s. 248 (1) of Act, order dt. 30-11-2013 passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s. 340 of Act and consequent notice dt. 12-2-2014 issued by the Board calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction in question - Petitioner submitted that the Board had initiated the entire action on a wrong premise - It was submitted that work in the nature of minor repairs to the roof was sought to be undertaken and such work did not require any previous sanction from the Board - It was submitted that as the old GI sheets on the roof were rusted resulting in leakage, the same were required to be replaced - Petitioner urged that his work did not amount to making any material alteration in the building and hence there was no occasion to invoke the provision of s.235 (2) (a) of Act - It was, thus, submitted that the entire action initiated by the Board was misconceived - It was further urged by petitioner that the impugned order dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner did not disclose proper application of mind to the relevant facts and the contentions as urged - In the absence of a detailed and reasoned order being passed by the Appellate Authority the same could not be sustained in law - It was, therefore, urged that the entire action initiated by the Board in the matter was required to be quashed -

Held, stand of the petitioner in the appeal memo that the restoration of the collapsed wall did not amount to erection/re-erection of building would also have to be taken into account while considering the manner in which the Appellate Authority applied its mind and came to the ultimate conclusion - If it was the case of the petitioner that restoration of a dilapidated and/or collapsed wall did not amount to erection/re-erection of a building and if on the basis of material on record the Appellate Authority found such stand untenable in the light of provisions of Act and the Revised Land Policy, 1995 then merely because the Appellate Authority did not assign elaborate reasons to support its conclusion, the same by itself would not vitiate the impugned order - HC was satisfied that the conclusion was arrived at by the Appellate Authority after duly considering the entire material on record along with relevant provisions in that regard - Case of the petitioner that the stand as taken in the appeal memo had been torn out of context could not be accepted as by said stand the petitioner sought to justify the restoration of a dilapidated and/or collapsed wall as not being an erection / re-erection - Hence, the submission of petitioner that the order of the Appellate Authority stood vitiated on account of non-application of mind could not be accepted - Turning to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that replacement of the roof would not amount to any material alteration, the same would have to be considered in the light of the actual work carried out by the petitioner - Inspection note and the notice issued to the petitioner on that basis referred to the demolition and reconstruction of the servant quarters - Along with the said work masonry wall with GI sheet roof was also laid - According to the petitioner as stated by him in his memo of appeal the dilapidated and/or collapsed wall was sought to be restored and the existing roof that was leaking was replaced - Thus, it was not a case of merely replacing the roof simplicitor - Nature of work undertaken had the effect of a collapsed mud wall being replaced by the B.B. Masonry wall - Thus, the roof structure of mud which was an out house and thus a 'building' as defined by s. 2 (d) of Act was sought to be restored with B.B. Masonry wall and GI sheet roof - That work had the effect of making material alteration to the existing structure that was a 'building' as defined by s. 2 (d) of the Act - As the same was without giving notice and there being no sanction of the Board, it was deemed that the petitioner had re-erected a building by making material alteration in terms of provisions of s. 235 (2) (a) of Act - Thus, considering entire nature of work carried out as referred to in the inspection note to which there was no serious challenge coupled with the averments of the petitioner in the memo of appeal, in the facts of the instant case it could not be said that replacing the roof with GI sheets did not amount to material alteration as urged - Petition dismissed.


Om Prakash @ Raju vs State Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Anand Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Sanjay Jain Alias Sanjay Kumar Jain vs Anil Kumar Sharma  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Girish Narain Srivastava and others vs Prescribed Authority/ UP Zila Adhikari and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Ananad Kumari vs Bank of Baroda and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Man Mohan Rai vs Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Mohammadunisha vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Narsihbhai Dharjibhai Semaniya vs State of Gujarat and others  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Prof. P. K. Sharma vs Kamlesh Sharma and others  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

(1) Ashok Dome S/o Late Lal Bahadur Dome; (2) Ganesh Dome; (3) Lallan Dome vs State of Bihar  [PATNA HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

(1) Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai; (2) Chief Engineer/Mechanical/Coal, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai vs Western Agencies Madras Private Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney A. P. Kunhikannan, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]



 Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer