Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)Section 401 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Friends Colony Development Committee vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 1 November, 2004
18. Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant argued that the direction given by the Division Bench is legally
unsustainable because while deciding the appeal preferred by respondent
No.7, the Division Bench of the High Court overlooked the fact that the
Mayor-in-Council had, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the
representative of respondent No.7, already passed order on 14.1.2010 for
demolition of the unauthorised construction. Learned senior counsel
emphasised that respondent No.7 had defied the ‘stop work notice’, decision
taken by Mayor-in-Council and continued with the construction of building
even after demolition of unauthorised portion thereof and argued that the
Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by ordaining
compliance of the rule of audi alteram partem ignoring that respondent No.7
had never contested the factum of unauthorised construction. Shri Bhaskar
P. Gupta relied upon the judgments of this Court in Friends Colony
Development Committee v. State of Orissa (supra) and Priyanka Estates
International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam (supra) and argued that the
Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by interfering
with the direction given by the learned Single Judge for demolition of the
construction which was raised by respondent No.7 in violation of the
sanctioned plan and by showing total contempt for the notices issued by the
Corporation under Sections 400 and 401 of the 1980 Act.
K. Ramadas Shenoy vs The Chief Officers, Town Municipal ... on 9 August, 1974
From the said report it appears that in an unauthorized
construction without sanction plan above 2nd floor, in terms of
the complaint filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Case
No. 320 dated 14.10.2010 under Section 401(A) KMC Act was
started and Developer/appellant and the respondent/Owner are
accused in the said proceeding.
Section 400 in Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Priyanka Estate International (P.) ... vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 28 July, 2006
18. Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant argued that the direction given by the Division Bench is legally
unsustainable because while deciding the appeal preferred by respondent
No.7, the Division Bench of the High Court overlooked the fact that the
Mayor-in-Council had, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the
representative of respondent No.7, already passed order on 14.1.2010 for
demolition of the unauthorised construction. Learned senior counsel
emphasised that respondent No.7 had defied the ‘stop work notice’, decision
taken by Mayor-in-Council and continued with the construction of building
even after demolition of unauthorised portion thereof and argued that the
Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by ordaining
compliance of the rule of audi alteram partem ignoring that respondent No.7
had never contested the factum of unauthorised construction. Shri Bhaskar
P. Gupta relied upon the judgments of this Court in Friends Colony
Development Committee v. State of Orissa (supra) and Priyanka Estates
International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam (supra) and argued that the
Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by interfering
with the direction given by the learned Single Judge for demolition of the
construction which was raised by respondent No.7 in violation of the
sanctioned plan and by showing total contempt for the notices issued by the
Corporation under Sections 400 and 401 of the 1980 Act.
Shanti Sports Club & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 August, 2009
In Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (supra), this Court approved
the order of the Delhi High Court which had declared the construction of
sports complex by the appellant on the land acquired for planned
development of Delhi to be illegal and observed:
Angarki Coop. Housing Society Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 1 February, 2000
In Pratibha Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
(supra), this Court approved the order passed by the Bombay Municipal
Corporation for demolition of the illegally constructed floors of the
building and observed: