1) Can the court permit the charitable trust to produce documents relating to charitable work for claiming exemption from property tax in temporary injunction application?
The petitioner could have been directed to place on record
its constitution and/or bye-laws to ascertain the object
of the trust and whether the activity is carried out for
advancement of charitable causes exclusively. It would,
therefore, be appropriate to remit the matter back to the
trial Court to decide the application for temporary
injunction afresh in the light of the aforesaid
observations.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8043 OF 2020
Abhinav Manav Vikas Sanstha Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : N.J.JAMADAR,J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2021
https://www.lawweb.in/2021/07/can-court-permit-charitable-trust-to.html
2) When is Municipal Corporation justified to remove encroachment done on the street?
In the light of the aforementioned four factors
being present, we are of the considered opinion that
the appellant (Commissioner) was justified in
invoking the powers under Section 314 of the Act
against the respondents on 26.05.2018 for removal
of their stalls/structures. Since the action to
remove the stalls/structures was taken under
Section 314 of the Act, it was not necessary to give
any prior notice to the respondents though a
circular was issued on 05.10.2015 requesting the
respondents to remove their stalls/structures from
the site in question.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.17271732
OF 2019
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa
Author: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Dated: February 18, 2019.
3) Whether court should order the tenant's eviction on the ground that the municipal corporation has issued demolition notices regarding rented premises if said order has lost efficacy?
The landlord is merely carrying out the order issued by the municipal authorities, who have issued the order in public interest. If the municipal authorities are no longer interested in the demolition of the premises, the landlord cannot be allowed to use it as a handle or lever to somehow evict the tenants from the suit premises
Bombay High Court
Mrs. Piadad Fernandez vs K.M. Ramesh on 22 January, 1970
Equivalent citations: (1970) 72 BOMLR 569 a
Bench: S Bhasme
4) Is society a necessary party in the suit to remove unauthorized construction made in property owned by society?
has held that the society owning the premises, in which unauthorised construction was made and for which a notice under Section 351 of the MMC Act was issued, was vitally affected and ought to be joined.
6) Supreme Court: Court should not direct re-erection of illegal structure if it was demolished in violation of procedure
16. We make it clear that we do not approve the action of the
Municipal Corporation or its officials in demolishing the
structures without following the procedure prescribed by law, but
the relief which has to be given must be in accordance with law
and not violative of the law. If a structure is an illegal structure,
even though it has been demolished illegally, such a structure
should not be permitted to come up again. If the Municipal
Corporation violates the procedure while demolishing the
building but the structure is totally illegal, some compensation
can be awarded and, in all cases where such compensation is
awarded the same should invariably be recovered from the
officers who have acted in violation of law. However, we again
reiterate that the illegal structure cannot be permitted to be reerected.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7627 OF 2019
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs
M/S SUNBEAM HIGH TECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD.
Deepak Gupta, J.
Dated:October 24, 2019.
7) Whether occupier of dilapidated building are necessary party to suit challenging notice issued by Municipal corporation for demolition?
In my view the presence of all the occupants thus would be absolutely necessary for the purpose for determining the controversy involved in the said suit.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition Nos. 5699, 6582, 6583 and 6584 of 2018
Decided On: 22.10.2018
Mahesh D. Jobanputra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
7) Whether acceptance of use and occupation charges by municipal corporation would amount to renewal of original lease?
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority
(supra), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere
acceptance of amounts by the authority therein would not amount to
renewal of the original lease.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.5863 of 2017
Shyam Ramapati Pandey Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Coram : Manish Pitale, J.
Dated : 11th January, 2019.
8) Whether maharashtra rent control Act is applicable to lease given by municipal corporation?
Further the
learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this
Court to the provision of section 3 of the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act 1999 which has made clear that the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act shall not apply to the
property belonging to the local body. In view of this
provision of law also the Civil Court cannot give the reliefs
claimed in the suit and so the jurisdiction is barred.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Civil Revision Application No. 249 of 2015
Municipal Corporation of City of Jalgaon Vs Arjundas Khushiram Bajaj
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 11th DECEMBER 2015
Citation:2016(4) ALLMR 70,2016 BomRC 205
9) Whether vesting of land give an absolute right to municipal corporation to transfer said land to private person?
But, an open space or spaces intended to be used by the public in general stand dedicated to the public for common use and must, therefore, remain with the State or its instrumentalities, such as JDA, Municipal Board/Council/Corporation or any other public authority. Therefore, the areas of open space reserved in the approved plan, though are vested in UIT or JDA, but the same cannot be allotted to any private person or body. Their user cannot be changed or converted by UIT or JDA. Such open space/spaces are meant for the use of a park, garden, lawn or any other form of open space intended to be used by the public. The vesting of such area in JDA or UIT is for a specific purpose i.e. to develop and maintain such areas for the purpose they are earmarked or reserved in the approved scheme. This vesting does not give an absolute right to UIT or JDA to allot/transfer such area to a private person or body for establishment of a school. Such deviation is not contemplated or permissible as per the Rules, as an open space is dedicated to the public and is intended to be used by the public. Hence, the site of open space could not be allotted by the JDA to the Modern School.
Rajasthan High Court
Nizam And Ors. vs Jaipur Development Authority And ... on 12 April, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR 1994 Raj 87, 1993 (2) WLC 169
No comments:
Post a Comment