Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 123 (2.43 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Corporation For Greater ... vs Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 25 August, 1971

Yogesh Shivlalbhai Thumar vs State Of Gujarat on 21 October, 2022

Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Limited (Supra), "12. It is clear, therefore, on a consideration of the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and especially the sections of that Act referred to above, that the Corporation is exclusively Page 17 of 28 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 21 20:43:58 IST 2022 C/SCA/13260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 entrusted with the duty of framing and implementation of the Planning Scheme and, to that end, has been invested with almost plenary powers. Since development and planning is primarily for the benefit of the public, the, Corporation is under an obligation to perform its duty in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It has, been long held that, where a statute imposes a duty the performance or non-performance of which is not a matter of discretion, a mandamus may be granted ordering that to be done which the statute requires to be done".
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Mani D. Seervai Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra (Through The ... on 22 December, 2000

Mr. Tulzapurkar also relied on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Advance Builders, wherein the Supreme Court has held that all lands in the area which is subject to the Scheme to whomsoever they might have originally belonged, would absolutely vest in the local authority, if under the Scheme, the same are allotted to the local authority.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be ... vs Municipal Commissioner & 2 on 21 October, 2016

"12. It is clear, therefore, on a consideration of the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and especially the sections of that Act referred to above, that the Corporation is exclusively entrusted with the duty of framing and implementation of the Planning Scheme and, to that end, has been invested with almost plenary powers. Since development and planning is primarily for the benefit of the public, the Corporation is under an obligation to perform its duty in accordance with the provisions of the Act......"
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Pal - Full Document

Dinkar Ramchandra Honale And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1982

In the Advances Builders' case the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the provisions of present Act also and it was observed by the Supreme Court that section 55 of the Act corresponds to section 90 of the new Act and is practically the same in contents. If this is to then the present case is not covered by section 90(3) of the Act. According to Shri Joglekar after his reply the Planning Authority should have made a reference to the Government under section 90(3) of the Act and as such a reference is not made, the notice issued by the Planning Authority is bad, it is an admitted position that no reference is made to the Government either by the plaintiffs or by the Planning Authority. Sub-section (3) of section 90 makes a provision for such a reference and further lays down that the decision of the Government or the Competent Officer, shall be final, conclusive and binding upon the all persons. Taking the word 'reference' in its strict sense it relates to a mode of determining questions by Government it only means submission of the controversy to the State Government. From the bare reading of the section itself, it appears that the reference should be made by any of the parties. However, it is not necessary to probe into this question any further, nor it is necessary to decide the question as to who can make reference to the Government in case of dispute. It is an admitted position that neither the plaintiffs nor the Corporation have chosen to make any reference in this behalf and therefore it cannot be said that there is anything pending before the Government under section 90(3) of the Act, moreover in view of the findings already recorded there is no subsisting dispute or question which requires determination by the Government. In the present case question raised by the plaintiffs already stand determined and decided, and therefore, recourse to the provisions of section 90(3) of the Act is wholly uncalled for.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mr. Nawab Ali Suleman Deleted Since ... vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 14 January, 2020

fa-686.13.doc contained Code. The Supreme Court considered the provisions relating to the final scheme under the said Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 which are in pari-materia with the provisions relating to the town planning scheme under the M.R.T.P. Act. It is held by the Supreme Court in the said judgment that it is primary duty of the local authority to remove all such buildings and works in the whole of area which contravene the town planning scheme. The development and planning is primarily for the benefit of the public, the Corporation is under a statutory obligation to perform its duty in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Court has power to issue a writ of mandamus ordering that to be done which the statue require to be done. The principles of law laid down in the said judgment applies to the facts of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next