SC refuses to stay HC order: Tardeo high-rise residents told to vacate illegal upper floors
The residents, who have been living in flats from the 17th to 34th floor of the 34-storey building for over a decade, were earlier ordered by the Bombay High Court to vacate within two weeks. The court found the occupation illegal, citing grave violations of municipal and fire safety regulations.
Rejecting the housing society's plea, the Supreme Court bench of justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the High Court's ruling. 'At the end of the day, the rule of law must prevail,' the judges said, calling the High Court's order 'very well considered, bold and lucid.' They also praised the court's 'courage and conviction' in tackling unauthorised constructions.
Construction of the building commenced in 1990, and flat owners started occupying their respective premises from 2008. As of now, 50 of the 62 flats in the high-rise are occupied. The apex court observed that showing sympathy to such illegal occupants would be 'thoroughly misplaced' and stressed that legal norms must be respected to ensure public safety. The court dismissed the society's special leave petition and directed that the High Court's instructions be strictly followed. It also said appropriate legal action must be taken against any erring officials or wrongdoers.
The Bombay High Court's order, passed on July 21 by justices G S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor, stemmed from a petition filed by Sunil B Zaveri, a resident of the same building. Zaveri flagged multiple irregularities in the construction, including the absence of a fire safety NOC and an OC for the upper floors. The court noted that the illegal flats pose a risk to human life and violate both the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
While some residents filed intervention pleas opposing the petition, the High Court held that such occupation was a 'brazen illegality'. 'Accepting such submissions would render the entire statutory regime meaningless,' the court said, warning that it would amount to legalising lawlessness in urban construction.
The housing society had argued that it was taking steps to regularise not just the lower 16 floors — for which approvals are reportedly being pursued — but also the upper 18 floors. It urged the court to let the families continue staying on humanitarian grounds while applications for regularisation were processed.
However, the High Court dismissed this plea, observing that residential occupancy without a valid OC cannot be justified, regardless of the number of years the flats have been in use. The court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to initiate legal action if the residents failed to vacate within the stipulated time.
The Supreme Court has allowed the society to approach the High Court to seek more time for vacating the flats. The High Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for August 6.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court refuses to release VVIP chopper middleman Michel James from jail
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Thursday refused to release Christian Michel James, the alleged Augusta Westland VVIP chopper middleman, from prison, noting that he has been accused of serious offences carrying punishment up to life imprisonment. Christian Michel James (PTI File Photo) The order was passed by special judge Sanjay Jindal on Thursday while dealing with a plea moved by James, through his lawyer Advocate Aljo K Joseph, seeking release under Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc), which deals with the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained. James in his plea said that he had already completed the maximum period of sentence of seven years in the case and hence ought to be released. The plea stated that James had remained in custody, including 123 days of pre-extradition detention, for nearly the entire maximum period, entitling him to mandatory release under the provision. The court said, 'Considering the allegations under Section 467 IPC which entails life imprisonment, it cannot be said that the accused has already undergone the period of maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences'. The court further said that the issue of whether Section 467 IPC applies to James shall be decided at the stage of framing of charges and cannot be prejudged at this stage. 'Judicial propriety prohibits reopening issues which have already been settled by superior courts,' the court added. The court went on to rely on a Supreme Court judgement from 2023, which observed that James had not only been extradited for cheating and criminal conspiracy but also for the offence of money laundering. The judge noted that these offences were connected to the extradition request and therefore did not violate the doctrine of speciality under Article 17 of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty or Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962. Referring to previous orders passed both by the Delhi high court and a trial court, the court said, 'The accused cannot raise the same ground before this court again, as the same would be abuse of process of law'. Earlier, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Tuesday told a Delhi court that the plea to be released by James was misleading as he had not completed the maximum sentence of seven years in the money laundering case for which he was extradited from the UAE. The ED stated, '…Article 17 of the Extradition Treaty with UAE not only permits trial for offences in respect of which extradition of an accused person is sought, but also for the offences connected herewith…reading of the extradition request as noted in the 2018 judgement passed by the Dubai Supreme Court, would show that besides other offences, the applicant's extradition was also 'sought' in respect of the offence of money laundering'. Stating that under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the maximum sentence prescribed for the concerned scheduled offences is seven years and the date of arrest in the ED's case was December 22, 2018, the maximum period of imprisonment for the offence has not yet expired and therefore the present entitlement sought by James were premature and liable to be dismissed. The ED's submissions on Tuesday came a day after the CBI, through public prosecutor DP Singh, argued on Monday that while the maximum sentence in its case was complete, framing of charges has to be carried out and James has to plead guilty, only after which he can claim that his sentence was over in the CBI's case. James was arrested by the CBI first after his extradition on December 4, 2018. Michel is accused of being a middleman in the Augusta Westland deal and faces charges under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. CBI had alleged that senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Special Protection Group (SPG), and Air Force agreed in 2004 to tweak the mandatory service ceiling of helicopters to favour AgustaWestland. This allegedly caused a loss of €398.21 million (approx. ₹2,666 crore) to the government in a deal worth €556.262 million ( ₹3,726.9 crore). The ED is probing the money trail linked to kickbacks in the deal. Michel was extradited from the UAE in December 2018 and remained in custody until he was granted bail this year. The Delhi high court granted him bail in March in ED's money laundering probe, following a Supreme Court order in February that granted bail in the CBI's corruption case. While doing so, the apex court observed that CBI had not completed the trial despite filing two chargesheets, and key documents had yet to be shared with Michel. He was released after furnishing a personal bond of ₹5 lakh and one surety of the same amount, as directed by the Delhi high court. He, however, still remains in prison, awaiting the renewal of his passport, which he has to submit before the court as part of the bail conditions. The Delhi high court had in May, modified James' bail conditions and replaced an earlier requirement of surety bond with a personal bond of ₹5 lakhs and a cash surety of ₹10 lakhs. It also directed that Michel would not be required to submit his passport right away and directed the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to ensure he does not leave the country and instructed the British High Commission to submit his renewed passport directly to the trial court. Michel had earlier told the trial court that Delhi was like a 'larger prison' for him, as his family could not visit, and that he feared for his life outside jail.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Tamil Nadu: 3 dead, 1 injured as illegal fireworks unit explodes in Virudhunagar
A devastating explosion at an illegal fireworks unit in Vijayakarisalkulam, Virudhunagar district, claimed the lives of three individuals, including two women. The blast, triggered by friction during the manufacturing of banned joint crackers, also left another woman severely injured. VIRUDHUNAGAR: Three people, including two women, were charred to death, and another woman was injured in an explosion at an illegal fireworks manufacturing unit operating at a house in Vijayakarisalkulam village near Vembakottai in Virudhunagar district on Saturday. The deceased were identified as M Jegatheeswaran (21) of Keelakottai in Nachiyarpuram; P Muthulakshmi (70) and P Shanmugathai (60), both residents of Vijayakarisalkulam. All three died on the spot. R Mariammal (48) of Vijayakarisalkulam sustained severe injuries and is undergoing treatment at Sivakasi govt hospital. Police said the house belonged to Ponnu Pandian (43) of East Street in Vijayakarisalkulam. Crackers, including banned joint crackers, were being manufactured illegally inside the premises. The Supreme Court imposed a ban on joint crackers and the use of barium nitrate in 2018. A sudden friction-induced spark triggered an explosion, causing the building to partially collapse, said the officials. Fire and rescue services personnel from Vembakottai and Virudhunagar police carried out rescue operations. The bodies were sent to Sivakasi govt hospital for post-mortem. Police are probing the source of the raw materials and have registered a case on Ponnu Pandian. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Raksha Bandhan wishes , messages and quotes !
News18
6 hours ago
- News18
Bombay HC Quashes Woman's Complaint Against Husband: 'Comments On Cooking, Attire Not Cruelty'
The woman alleged that about a month after her marriage in March 2022, she was harassed mentally and physically by her husband and her in-laws. The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed a criminal case against a man and his family filed by his estranged wife, observing that remarks on a wife's attire or cooking skills did not constitute grave cruelty or harassment. 'Making annoying statements that the informant was not wearing proper clothes, was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment," said a bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh. The court further said, 'When the relationship gets strained, it appears that exaggerations are made. When everything was disclosed prior to the marriage and allegations are omnibus or of not so grave for befitting in the concept of cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face the trial." The woman alleged that about a month after her marriage in March 2022, she was harassed mentally and physically by her husband and her in-laws. She claimed her husband's mental condition was concealed before marriage and he was undergoing psychological treatment. The complainant also accused her in-laws of insulting her for not bringing gifts, demanding Rs 15 lakh during Diwali for a flat and driving her out of the house in June 2023. The husband and his family moved the High Court to quash the case. The woman and her counsel argued that the acts amounted to cruelty under Section 498A, and alleged a pattern of physical and mental harassment, including monitoring her phone and questioning her character. However, the court said that the allegations were 'omnibus" in nature and lacked corroborative evidence, and that the investigating officer had not even questioned the couple's neighbours. It also observed that the wife was aware of the husband's health condition prior to marriage, based on chat records. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) pertains to cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband or his relatives. It is classified as a cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence. This means that police can arrest the accused without a warrant, bail is not granted as a matter of right, and the case cannot be resolved through a private settlement outside the court. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
