Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)
M/S Elite Builders vs The Member Secretary, Goa Coastal Zone ... on 4 January, 2024 cites

Ram Kumar Barnwal vs Ram Lakhan (Dead) on 14 May, 2007

In this regard, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also vehemently argued that this preparation of CRZ map is of subsequent date, which excludes the survey number in question from the CRZ area, should benefit the appellant because it should be treated to be a later development and for this the said learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment in the matter of Ram Kumar Barnwal vs. Ram Lakhan (Dead) [(2007) 5 SCC 660]. The facts of this case are that respondent no.1 had repeatedly committed default in payment of rent to the mother of the appellant, which led to filing of a suit (Suit no. 23 of 1970) for ejectment of respondent no.1 on the Appeal No.59/2018(WZ) along-with connected M.A. Page 26 of 37 ground of default. Though suit was decreed up-to second appeal stage, in appeal the order of ejectment was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 30.11.1976, as respondent no.1 had started depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act. In 1980, appellant moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, which was resisted by the respondent. The Prescribed Authority on the report of Commissioner held that the eviction petition was not maintainable, which order was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court challenging correctness of the Judgment and order dated 22.04.1983. It was brought to the notice of Hon'ble High Court by the appellant that he had been evicted from the tenanted premises, where-in he was carrying on business and therefore, he was left with no accommodation to earn his livelihood. The Hon'ble High Court held that even if it is found that the findings of the courts below were erroneous in law, the matter has been remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release application was filed quarter of a century ago and bona fide need, and comparative hardship change by the passage of time. The writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to file fresh release application. In this matter, questions arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the relevance of the subsequent events during pendency of the proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 50 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor & General Traders on 18 March, 1975

47. A large number of case laws have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above-mentioned case such as Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders [(1975) 1 SCC 770], which was specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant, where-in extract of the said Judgment has been reproduced in this Judgment, in which it is recorded that "it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that Appeal No.59/2018(WZ) along-with connected M.A. Page 27 of 37 the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events". Citing this, it is argued that subsequent development, which have taken place, must be taken into consideration and in the case in hand, since under CRZ Notification 2011, a new CZMP map has been prepared in the year 2022, showing the property in question excluded from CRZ, which benefit must go to the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 472 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Om Prakash Gupta vs Ranbir B. Goyal on 18 January, 2002

But we do not agree with the said argument of learned counsel for appellant because in this very Judgment, there are several other Judgments also cited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal [(2002) 2 SCC 256], which says that the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied:- (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. The above riders subject to which the subsequent event may be taken into consideration do not apply in the present case because it has to be seen whether according to it complete justice is being done to the parties. In the case in hand, it is clear that the matter relates to environmental violation because of the construction having been made without permission from the GCZMA for raising construction in CRZ area, Appeal No.59/2018(WZ) along-with connected M.A. Page 28 of 37 therefore, the relevant point of time, when the work of construction has been done, there was no law and rule position saying that such construction could have been done. Therefore, giving benefit of subsequent CZMP allegedly excluding the property in question from the CRZ area, benefit of that should be given to the appellant, in our opinion, does not appear to be correct for complete justice in the matter. Justice would mean in the present matter that if any illegal act has been done, the same has to be corrected and not that the violation should be perpetuated in the teeth of environmental violations. We also apprehend that the subsequent CZMP map, which is being relied upon by the appellant, is on the scale of 1:25000, which is not making the boundaries of the Survey Number in question very clear as the same is not on the cadastral map of 1:4000. Cadastral map on the scale 1:4000 would make the boundary of the said Survey Number clear and would make it in a better way clear whether the same fell within CRZ area or outside it.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 250 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

The Municipal Commissioner Of ... vs M/S. Vardhaman & Hiranandani ... on 15 November, 2019

In this regard, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr. vs. Vardhman & Hiranandani Developers [2020 (1) Bom.C.R. 134]. The facts of this case are that plaintiffs filed Suit No.2450 of 2003 before the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai for a permanent order of injunction to be issued against the defendants Corporation that they should not take any action under notice dated 07.02.1998, which was issued to the Plaintiffs under Section 354A of the Appeal No.59/2018(WZ) along-with connected M.A. Page 33 of 37 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for demolition of the Building No.4, situated on a plot bearing no.261 of Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivli, Mumbai. During pendency of the said Suit, plaintiffs carried out amendment and also claimed declaration to the effect that the said property, which is constructed by them, is not affected by Coastal Zone Regulation. The Trial Court held that the construction carried out by the plaintiffs as per sanction lay out/building plan and declared that the same was not unauthorized construction. But at the same time, the Trial Court also held that the same was situated within Coastal Regulation Zone, therefore, they were not entitled for completion and occupation certificate. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the present First Appeal No.849 of 2019 challenging the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of issue of Coastal Regulation Zone and refusing to direct the Corporation to issue completion certificate and occupation certificate for the suit property. We note that in this Judgment, it is recorded in para no.52 that the plaintiff's project had commenced in the year 1988 with the State Government granting approval for development of lands for weaker section Housing, under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had obtained all the necessary permissions from the defendants for development of the suit land. The construction of the suit building no.4 was over in the year 1998-99, much prior to Coastal Zone Management Plan being published on 19.01.2000. Hence, it was held that the defendants Corporation committed grave error by rejecting the regularization application filed by the plaintiffs on 17.05.2000 on the ground that the development of the Suit property is affected by CRZ. This itself shows that the Corporation defendants retrospectively made the Coastal Zone Management Plan applicable to the development of the suit property. It is evident that prior to publication of Coastal Zone Appeal No.59/2018(WZ) along-with connected M.A. Page 34 of 37 Management Plan, the construction of the suit building was over and was awaiting occupation certificate from the Corporation. This shows that the ongoing projects were not affected by the publication of Coastal Zone Management Plan.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - K K Tated - Full Document
1   2 Next