Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)
Prem Siddha Co-Op. Housing Society And ... vs Chief Executive Officer And 6 Ors on 20 October, 2021
cites
The Slum Areas (Improvement And Clearance) Act, 1956
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Section 33 in The Slum Areas (Improvement And Clearance) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari And Ors. vs The Chief Executive Officer, Slum ... on 26 April, 2006
In Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari Vs. Chief Executive Officer, (2006) 4
Mh.L.J. 282, a Division Bench of this Court considered DCR 33(10) of
the Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai, 1991 and
held that if 70% of the slum-dwellers on a particular area come together
and apply after formation of proposed co-operative housing society, the
said application has to be independently considered in accordance with
law. The scheme does not contemplate simultaneous consideration of
such an application made by a proposed society with an application
subsequently made by another proposed society relating to the same
land. The applicant society has to have 70% support which obviously
two societies cannot have. The application received first is to be
processed first independently. If it fails to get 70% support, the second
application can be considered. The obvious intention is to avoid
unhealthy competition between different builders who are interested in
supporting such societies. It was held as follows:-
Section 12 in The Slum Areas (Improvement And Clearance) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Slum Areas (Improvement And Clearance) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ... on 1 November, 2007
Upholding the objection of
Indira and Om Omega, the Division Bench directed Shiv Kripa to
approach the HPC constituted in terms of the Full Bench judgment in
Tulsiwadi (supra). Consequently, the judgment and order of learned
Single Judge dated 15.04.2011 was set aside and quashed. It was made
clear that the Division Bench had not gone into the merit of the case and
that all the points and contentions of the respective parties were
expressly kept open to be agitated before the HPC.
1