Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996
16. Mr. P. K. Ray, learned Senior Counsel, relied upon Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors., , to contend as held therein that there is no discrimination for perpetration of wrongful act. Extension of equality in Article 14 for breach of law would aid impetus to perpetrate further illegalities. Article 14 is therefore not available in the said context.
Rajatha Enterprises vs S.K. Sharma & Ors on 3 February, 1989
9. Reliance by Mr. Adhikari upon the judgment in Rajatha Enterprises v. S.K. Sharma and Ors., is misplaced. That was a case where the challenge was to the permission granted to the builder to construct the building. The contention was that public interest is prejudiced in so far as the building has been constructed contrary to the provisions of the Corporation Act and the Planning Act. Thus, as contended by Mr. Ray, the judgment has no application to the case on hand as in that case there was a sanctioned plan. The following observations in the judgment upon which much reliance has been placed by Mr. Adhikari would themselves distinguish that case to the one on hand:
Section 414 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Section 388 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Purusottam Lalji And Ors. vs Ratan Lal Agarwalla And Ors. on 31 July, 1972
10. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Purusottam Lalji and Ors. v. Ratan Lal Agarwalla and Ors., is not an authority for the proposition that in case of violation of minimal nature the building rules perforce must be relaxed or that the unauthorized construction should be allowed to stand. The two questions which were framed for consideration by Their Lordships in the Full Bench were as under :
Harbans Singh Saluja vs Building Tribunal, Corporation Of ... on 31 July, 1984
12. Next, reliance was placed by Mr. Adhikari, learned Counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Division Bench in Harbans Singh Saluja v. Building Tribunal, Corporation of Calcutta and Ors., . There can be no dispute with the proposition settled in that case. However, the question involved in the present matter is different from that under consideration before the Division Bench as can be seen from paragraph 7 of that judgment which for sake of convenience is extracted hereunder :
1