Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Dhirender Sharma . vs Ememerald Court Owners Resident ... on 23 October, 2017

Floriana Estate Apartment Owners vs The Commissioner on 16 March, 2021

13. It is also contended that there has never been two drive ways of 6 meters each to approach the apartment complex and there has always been a drive way of 9 meters from the eastern side of the apartment. The learned Single Judge has refused to quash the sanction plan and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.49732/2012 dated 26.02.2013 has attained finality. It is also argued that there is drive way of 9 meters which means that the owners of the apartment complex have an access to the main road i.e., Sarjapur Road and FAR is determined on the basis of public road available to approach the apartment complex and not the means of access of 9 meters. It is submitted that the builder has constructed the apartment complex as per the sanction plan dated 16.02.2001 and therefore, the contention of the 23 appellant that the firm has suppressed the sanction plan dated 16.02.2001 to secure the impugned plan is wholly untenable. It is also submitted that it is incorrect to state that firm was created only to develop the property and to secure the plan. It is lastly urged that the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. It is also pointed out that the decision of the Allahabad High court relied upon by learned Senior counsel for the appellant has been stayed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 05.05.2014 passed in SLP (CC) No.6754/2014 (DHIRENDER SHARMA AND ORS. VS. EMERALD COURT OWNERS RES. WEL. ASSOC. AND ORS.).
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1