Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 246 (5.12 seconds)
Documents citing The Consumer Action Group & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.!The Consumer ... on 18 August, 2000

M.Z. Ansari vs Xavier Britto on 26 March, 2025

All the pending and future Petitions against CMDA relying on illegal and unauthorized construction of building or encroachment and demolishment notice shall be placed before the Special Bench nominated by Hon’ble Chief 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:35:20 pm ) Appeal Suit No.946 of 2014 Justice of this Court in The Chairman, MMDA -Vs- S.Radhakrishnan (2006 (1) CTC 241). The direction issued in this case is against the person who approaches the Civil Court seeking mandatory injunction against the CMDA or Corporation Authorities or against the Authorities directing the builder or the owner of the property for demolishing the offending construction. Here, the facts are different. The Plaintiff had purchased the flats as per the sale deed executed by the Defendants in their favour. The open terrace is for the common use of the purchasers of the property. After having purchased the property, the Defendants, as owners of the vacant site and builder of the flats had put up construction without obtaining prior approval either by Corporation of Chennai or by CMDA. The claim of the Defendant that the First Bench alone shall dispose of cases of this nature and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the light of the reported ruling in 2006 (4) CTC 483 in the case of Consumer Action Group and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, will not hold good as far as the facts of this case is concerned. The Plaintiffs suffered injury, due to a continuous wrong perpetrated by the Defendants.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

M.Z. Ansari vs Xavier Britto on 26 March, 2025

All the pending and future Petitions against CMDA relying on illegal and unauthorized construction of building or encroachment and demolishment notice shall be placed before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis theon:Special ( Uploaded 28/03/2025 Bench nominated 11:46:06 am ) by Hon’ble Chief 15/29 Appeal Suit No.946 of 2014 Justice of this Court in The Chairman, MMDA -Vs- S.Radhakrishnan (2006 (1) CTC 241). The direction issued in this case is against the person who approaches the Civil Court seeking mandatory injunction against the CMDA or Corporation Authorities or against the Authorities directing the builder or the owner of the property for demolishing the offending construction. Here, the facts are different. The Plaintiff had purchased the flats as per the sale deed executed by the Defendants in their favour. The open terrace is for the common use of the purchasers of the property. After having purchased the property, the Defendants, as owners of the vacant site and builder of the flats had put up construction without obtaining prior approval either by Corporation of Chennai or by CMDA. The claim of the Defendant that the First Bench alone shall dispose of cases of this nature and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the light of the reported ruling in 2006 (4) CTC 483 in the case of Consumer Action Group and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, will not hold good as far as the facts of this case is concerned. The Plaintiffs suffered injury, due to a continuous wrong perpetrated by the Defendants.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Janhit Manch vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 2 November, 2018

In Consumer Action Group's case, cited supra, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 113-A of the Act on the premise that it was a power to be exercised as a one-time measure and the legislature cannot extend the scheme contrary to the order of the Supreme Court. It is not open to the Government to keep on amending schemes or bring new schemes by frequently extending the cut-off date thereby virtually making a complete mockery of the provisions of the Act. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the exemption clause may properly apply only to excessive and genuine hardship and ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:31:40 ::: 120 not to exempt the violators from the application and control of the Act thereby allowing them a free hand to violate the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city. By virtue of amended Section 113-A of the Act, buildings which have been constructed after 1999 in violation of the Town Planning Law, zoning regulations and the Development Control Rules, are now eligible to get those violations regularized and this would in effect defeat the object of the legislation itself and the order of the Supreme Court directing the respondents to nip the violations in the bud. To repeatedly enable an authority to grant dispensation of the application of the Rules is to create a situation which would virtually encourage the consistent pattern of abuse of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The objective of the Act is to promote planned development in the city. The frequent amendments effected to Section 113-A suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing a fee. The power of exemption cannot operate to destroy the substantive provisions of the statute and these exemption clauses can be applied only to remove excessive and genuine hardship and not to virtually allow the builders a free hand in violating the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Rajiv Mohan Mishra vs City And Industrial Development ... on 2 November, 2018

In Consumer Action Group's case, cited supra, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 113-A of the Act on the premise that it was a power to be exercised as a one-time measure and the legislature cannot extend the scheme contrary to the order of the Supreme Court. It is not open to the Government to keep on amending schemes or bring new schemes by frequently extending the cut-off date thereby virtually making a complete mockery of the provisions of the Act. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the exemption clause may properly apply only to excessive and genuine hardship and ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:30:35 ::: 120 not to exempt the violators from the application and control of the Act thereby allowing them a free hand to violate the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city. By virtue of amended Section 113-A of the Act, buildings which have been constructed after 1999 in violation of the Town Planning Law, zoning regulations and the Development Control Rules, are now eligible to get those violations regularized and this would in effect defeat the object of the legislation itself and the order of the Supreme Court directing the respondents to nip the violations in the bud. To repeatedly enable an authority to grant dispensation of the application of the Rules is to create a situation which would virtually encourage the consistent pattern of abuse of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The objective of the Act is to promote planned development in the city. The frequent amendments effected to Section 113-A suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing a fee. The power of exemption cannot operate to destroy the substantive provisions of the statute and these exemption clauses can be applied only to remove excessive and genuine hardship and not to virtually allow the builders a free hand in violating the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 8 - A Oka - Full Document

Mayura Maru vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Urban ... on 2 November, 2018

In Consumer Action Group's case, cited supra, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 113-A of the Act on the premise that it was a power to be exercised as a one-time measure and the legislature cannot extend the scheme contrary to the order of the Supreme Court. It is not open to the Government to keep on amending schemes or bring new schemes by frequently extending the cut-off date thereby virtually making a complete mockery of the provisions of the Act. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the exemption clause may properly apply only to excessive and genuine hardship and ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:30:59 ::: 120 not to exempt the violators from the application and control of the Act thereby allowing them a free hand to violate the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city. By virtue of amended Section 113-A of the Act, buildings which have been constructed after 1999 in violation of the Town Planning Law, zoning regulations and the Development Control Rules, are now eligible to get those violations regularized and this would in effect defeat the object of the legislation itself and the order of the Supreme Court directing the respondents to nip the violations in the bud. To repeatedly enable an authority to grant dispensation of the application of the Rules is to create a situation which would virtually encourage the consistent pattern of abuse of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The objective of the Act is to promote planned development in the city. The frequent amendments effected to Section 113-A suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing a fee. The power of exemption cannot operate to destroy the substantive provisions of the statute and these exemption clauses can be applied only to remove excessive and genuine hardship and not to virtually allow the builders a free hand in violating the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Vivek Velankar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 November, 2018

In Consumer Action Group's case, cited supra, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 113-A of the Act on the premise that it was a power to be exercised as a one-time measure and the legislature cannot extend the scheme contrary to the order of the Supreme Court. It is not open to the Government to keep on amending schemes or bring new schemes by frequently extending the cut-off date thereby virtually making a complete mockery of the provisions of the Act. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the exemption clause may properly apply only to excessive and genuine hardship and ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:31:23 ::: 120 not to exempt the violators from the application and control of the Act thereby allowing them a free hand to violate the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city. By virtue of amended Section 113-A of the Act, buildings which have been constructed after 1999 in violation of the Town Planning Law, zoning regulations and the Development Control Rules, are now eligible to get those violations regularized and this would in effect defeat the object of the legislation itself and the order of the Supreme Court directing the respondents to nip the violations in the bud. To repeatedly enable an authority to grant dispensation of the application of the Rules is to create a situation which would virtually encourage the consistent pattern of abuse of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The objective of the Act is to promote planned development in the city. The frequent amendments effected to Section 113-A suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing a fee. The power of exemption cannot operate to destroy the substantive provisions of the statute and these exemption clauses can be applied only to remove excessive and genuine hardship and not to virtually allow the builders a free hand in violating the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Shri. Bhausaheb Baban Khedkar vs Maharashtra Industrial Development ... on 2 November, 2018

In Consumer Action Group's case, cited supra, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 113-A of the Act on the premise that it was a power to be exercised as a one-time measure and the legislature cannot extend the scheme contrary to the order of the Supreme Court. It is not open to the Government to keep on amending schemes or bring new schemes by frequently extending the cut-off date thereby virtually making a complete mockery of the provisions of the Act. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the exemption clause may properly apply only to excessive and genuine hardship and ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:30:47 ::: 120 not to exempt the violators from the application and control of the Act thereby allowing them a free hand to violate the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city. By virtue of amended Section 113-A of the Act, buildings which have been constructed after 1999 in violation of the Town Planning Law, zoning regulations and the Development Control Rules, are now eligible to get those violations regularized and this would in effect defeat the object of the legislation itself and the order of the Supreme Court directing the respondents to nip the violations in the bud. To repeatedly enable an authority to grant dispensation of the application of the Rules is to create a situation which would virtually encourage the consistent pattern of abuse of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The objective of the Act is to promote planned development in the city. The frequent amendments effected to Section 113-A suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing a fee. The power of exemption cannot operate to destroy the substantive provisions of the statute and these exemption clauses can be applied only to remove excessive and genuine hardship and not to virtually allow the builders a free hand in violating the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Shri. Krishna Jotiba Naik vs Maharashtra Industrial Development ... on 2 November, 2018

In Consumer Action Group's case, cited supra, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 113-A of the Act on the premise that it was a power to be exercised as a one-time measure and the legislature cannot extend the scheme contrary to the order of the Supreme Court. It is not open to the Government to keep on amending schemes or bring new schemes by frequently extending the cut-off date thereby virtually making a complete mockery of the provisions of the Act. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the exemption clause may properly apply only to excessive and genuine hardship and ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:31:11 ::: 120 not to exempt the violators from the application and control of the Act thereby allowing them a free hand to violate the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city. By virtue of amended Section 113-A of the Act, buildings which have been constructed after 1999 in violation of the Town Planning Law, zoning regulations and the Development Control Rules, are now eligible to get those violations regularized and this would in effect defeat the object of the legislation itself and the order of the Supreme Court directing the respondents to nip the violations in the bud. To repeatedly enable an authority to grant dispensation of the application of the Rules is to create a situation which would virtually encourage the consistent pattern of abuse of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The objective of the Act is to promote planned development in the city. The frequent amendments effected to Section 113-A suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing a fee. The power of exemption cannot operate to destroy the substantive provisions of the statute and these exemption clauses can be applied only to remove excessive and genuine hardship and not to virtually allow the builders a free hand in violating the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Nathella Sampath Jewellery (P) Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 6 September, 2013

In the circumstances, I am not in agreement with the order dated 26.07.2012 in W.P.No.2219 of 2012 and the orders dated 29.04.2013 and 30.04.2013 in W.P.Nos.5661 and 5662 of 2013 and 11649 of 2013 respectively in view of the categorical pronouncement of the First Bench of this Court in Consumer Action Group V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 and as such, I am also not inclined to follow the said orders. Since these writ petitions are filed solely based on these orders, these writ petitions must fail.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

Pranjivan Harjivan Parmar vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 15 October, 2003

76. Insofar as, the contention that discrimination and differentiation qua the Impugned Act is concerned, we find no substance. The allegation of excessive delegation of powers is also totally, meritless. The Impugned Act is not "ultra vires" the Constitution. It is not vulnerable and impeachable. It is held to be intra vires. Our view is also fortified by the decision of the Consumer Action Group (supra) as well as following latest decisions and relevant judicial pronouncements.
Gujarat High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next