Category: Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

2024I NSC3 79 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. RANBEER BOSE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANITA DAS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 – Regulation 34 – Claim for Additional TDR – Waiting to receive clearance of right over additional Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) in a pending acquisition proceeding does not amount to abandonment of the claim

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS —…

Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 185 – Arrears of property tax and water tax until the date of confirmation of sale, would qualify as the expenses for “preserving, realising or getting in” the assets of the company and thus, shall have to be paid in priority by Official Liquidator.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR — Appellant Vs. UJJAIN NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – Sections 15(2-A) and 41 – Completion Certificate – the intention of the Act is to levy only those charges/fees provided/mentioned under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, otherwise the other charges also would have been defined under the Act, 1973. Levy of such other charges can be said to be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Sections 507(a) – Special provisions as to rural areas – Once there is a notification issued by the competent authority in exercise of power under Section 507(a) which is a special provision in reference to rural areas, such of the rural areas cease to be included therein upon issuance of the notification and shall thereafter include in and form part of the urban areas in terms of the notification.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHINDER SINGH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar and Bela…

Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Sections 129 and 132 – Exemption from payment of general tax – – correct to hold that provisions from Section 141AA to Section 141F form a complete code when tax has to be computed and paid on the carpet area method, and for such computation, reference cannot be made to the provisions of Sections 129 to 133 which relate to property tax payable on annual rateable value.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA — Appellant Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – the capital value of the land and building must be based on situation “in presenti”- in projects which are in progress, the value addition to the property would be ongoing feature. However, it would mean that the governing principle must be the actual use and not the intended use in future.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.