Supreme Court of India Judgements

46700 Judgements hosted as on 25/01/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Municipal Laws

Municipal Laws

Development Control Rules for Greater Bombay, 1967 – Claim for construction of open spaces – Open spaces are required to be left for an approval of layout or for the purpose of creating lung space for the owners of other plots where constructions are permitted. HELD It is fairly well settled that in an approved layout, the open spaces which are left, are to be continued in that manner alone and no construction can be permitted in such open spaces. Appeal dismissed.

Apr 18, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANJUMAN E SHIATE ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GULMOHAR AREA SOCIETIES WELFARE GROUP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M.…

Municipal Laws

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 26 – HELD The High Court, mainly on the ground that the Planning Authority has not prepared a draft development plan within the time prescribed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act, has allowed the writ petition with a further direction that the competent authority shall undertake the remaining work relating to preparation of draft development plan and submit to the State Government for sanction. – We are of the view that the said aspects need not be gone into at this stage by this Court. Chapter III of the MRTP Act deals with the preparation of development plan and as per Section 38 of the MRTP Act development plan is to be revised at least once in twenty years. We are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Apr 18, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MAYOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. GOVIND BAJIRAO NAVPUTE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash…

Municipal Laws

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 44 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 285 – Property tax – Liability -HELD This Court allow these appeals set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that the appellant is exempted and not liable to pay property tax under 1888 Act. However, the appellant is liable to pay services charges for the services rendered by the Corporation and it shall be open for the respondents to conduct an enquiry in accordance with provision of Section 144 of 1888

Mar 22, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan And M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Municipal Laws

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 351 – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Section 3Z(2)(i) – Transferable Development Rights – legal heirs of the original owner of the land were the petitioners in one writ petition and eleven persons claiming to be the tenants, were the petitioners in the other writ petitions – Insofar as persons claiming to be the owners of the land are concerned, the Municipal Corporation itself had conceded before the High Court that they were willing to offer TDR.

Feb 1, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PANNA MAHESH CHANDRA DAVE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V.…

Municipal Laws

Body Corporates Like City Municipal Council/Corporation Can Be Prosecuted U/s 47 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act HELD “Offences by body corporate like City Municipal Council are covered under Section 49 treating it to be offence as by company as provided in Section 47.”

Nov 28, 2019 sclaw

Body Corporates Like City Municipal Council/Corporation Can Be Prosecuted U/s 47 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act: SC [Read Judgment] “Offences by body corporate like City Municipal Council are…

Municipal Laws

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 62 – Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 92 and 92A -Resolution plan – Section 238 cannot be read as overriding the MCGM’s right – Indeed its public duty ­ to control and regulate how its properties are to be dealt with exists in Sections 92 and 92A of the MMC Act – there can be no estoppel against the express provisions of law .

Nov 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI (MCGM) — Appellant Vs. ABHILASHLAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra…

Municipal Laws

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Sections 139, 140 and 169 – Water Charges Rules – Applicability of – High Court misread the impugned demand notices as being under Section 169 of the Act, when in fact the same were for recovery of property tax in the form of water benefit tax under Section 139 read with Sections 140 and 141 of the Act.

Oct 28, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. HARISH LAMBA OF BOMBAY, INDIAN INHABITANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and…

Municipal Laws

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Held we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the High Court in part and also set aside the finding recorded by the High Court that no deeming permission accrued under Regulation 6(4) of Development Control Regulations, 1991. In our opinion, deemed permission accrued, and concerning the determination of refuge area as per order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, no interference is called for

Oct 28, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Vineet…

Municipal Laws

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Sections 337, 342, 347, 351, 351(2), 351(1A) and 351(ii) – Re-construction of building – When municipal corporation demolishes a structure in exercise of powers vested in it but in violation of the procedure prescribed, the High Court CANNOT  direct the ‘owner/occupier’ of the building to reconstruct the demolished structure

Oct 28, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S SUNBEAM HIGH TECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta…

You missed

I P C

The testimony of related eyewitnesses should be carefully scrutinized but not dismissed solely based on their relationship to the victim; minor inconsistencies in witness testimony do not render the testimony unreliable; medical evidence should be used to corroborate eyewitness accounts

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw
Child Custody

Custody and visitation — Appellant and Respondent married in 2007 and separated in 2016, have been in a custody dispute over their daughter, who has lived with mother since the separation — The father sought joint custody or expanded visitation, while the mother raised safety concerns due to alleged abusive behavior — The Family Court granted sole custody to the mother with limited visitation for the father — The High Court expanded visitation rights, including more frequent visits, shared vacations, and video calls, while retaining sole custody with the mother — The Supreme Court upheld most arrangements but reduced vacation visits to one day initially and mandated a female court commissioner’s presence during physical visits in public places — The decision aims to balance the child’s safety, stability, and the father’s involvement, pending a full hearing.

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw
Constitution Corporate

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not absolutely barred by the statutory arbitration mechanism under the MSMED Act and can be exercised in exceptional cases, such as violations of fundamental rights, natural justice, or jurisdictional errors, despite the availability of alternative remedies

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw
Stamp Act State Laws

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 48(1) — Refund of stamp duty — The appellants sought a refund of stamp duty paid for a property transaction that was later cancelled — The High Court dismissed their claim, holding that the amended six-month limitation period applied — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the unamended two-year limitation period applied, and the appellants were entitled to a refund.

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw