HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS LANDMARK JUDGEMENT GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ACTRESS MS. KANGANA RANAUT

 


Kangana Ranaut Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Greater And Ors,(2020) 11 BOM CK 0045

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY while granting relief to the Actress Ms. Kangana Ranaut held that the impugned notice dated 7th  September, 2020 and the impugned speaking Order of demolition dated 9th  September, 2020 issued / passed by Shri Late MCGM deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Hon’ble High Court passed the following Order :-

(i) The impugned notice dated 7th September, 2020 alongwith the speaking Order of demolition dated 9th September, 2020 are quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Petitioner is allowed to take such steps as are required to make the said bungalow habitable so that the Petitioner can immediately start occupying and using the same. However, to the extent any demolished portion requires a planning permission and such permission in not in place reconstruction of such portion can only be made either in compliance with the sanctioned plan or after seeking approval of the MCGM for the work proposed. In the event any application is made, the MCGM shall decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application / plan.

(iii) As regards the area, which is not demolished by the MCGM, if the MCGM proposes to take any action, it may issue a notice giving 7 days time to the Petitioner to respond to / comply with the same. In the meantime, the Petitioner shall also be at liberty to make an application seeking regularization of the works already carried out but not demolished under Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act, 1966. In case any such application is made no further steps in response to the notice shall be taken by the MCGM before disposal of such application and a copy of the Order provided to the Petitioner as well as her Advocate.

(iv) M/s. Shetgiri and Associates, Architects, Engineers, Interior Designers and Valuers are appointed as the Surveyors/Valuers to value and determine the extent and value of damage and loss caused to the Petitioner and submit their report to this Court on 9th March, 2021 to enable the Court to award compensation to the Petitioner. The Surveyors / Valuers shall hear both parties i.e. the Petitioner and the MCGM before making their report. The charges of the Surveyors/Valuers shall initially be borne by the Petitioner.

(v) Liberty to the parties to apply in case of any difculty.

(vi) The Writ Petition to appear for further Orders on 9th March, 2021.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge.

Image
All India Union Bank Officer Vs. Brajeshwar Sharma, (2020) 09 MAD CK 0001 ( Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge. )
Read more

DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 167 OF THE CR.P.C. AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 43(D)(2) OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967

Image
Khalid Vs. State (GOVT. Of NCT Of Delhi), (2020) 09 DEL CK 0033 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the decision to extend the judicial custody of an accused seriously affects the accused and the principles of natural justice clearly require that such an accused be granted the right to oppose the passing of any such order. Clearly for the right to be more meaningful, it would also be apposite to disclose the detailed reasons for seeking such an order which extends the time for completion of investigation accruing out of the proviso to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. as modified by Section 43(D)(2) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 for investigations under UAPA. However, the rights ofthe accused in this regard have to be necessarily curtailed by the necessity to conceal such reasons from the accused and not make it public. This is because,at this stage, the investigation is incomplete and disclosing the manner in which investigation has proceeded and ...
Read more

Important Judgement of Hon,ble Delhi High Court imposing cost of Rs.20 Lacs on the Plaintiffs for abuse of process of law and for disruption of court proceedings. In addition the Hon’ble High Court also initiated Contempt Proceedings against the persons who disrupted court proceedings inspite of repeated warnings.

Image
  Juhi Chawla & Ors Vs. Science And Engineering Research Board & Ors; (2021) 06 DEL CK 0035 Important Judgement of Hon,ble Delhi High Court imposing cost of Rs.20 Lacs on the Plaintiffs for abuse of process of law and for disruption of court proceedings. In addition the Hon’ble High Court also initiated Contempt Proceedings against the persons who disrupted court proceedings inspite of repeated warnings.
Read more