Latest news with #AvinashGharote
Time of India
07-05-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Nod to GMCH's linear accelerator in 3 weeks, HC told
Nagpur: After a prolonged delay, the Maharashtra govt assured the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court that it would grant fresh administrative approval within three weeks for the installation of a linear accelerator machine at Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) for cancer treatment, regardless of the escalated cost.A division bench of Justices Avinash Gharote and Abhay Mantri, hearing a suo motu PIL on poor infrastructure at GMCH and Mayo Hospital, directed the Medical Education and Drugs Department, the GMCH dean, and Maharashtra Medical Goods Procurement Authority to begin procurement immediately and complete it within four weeks. The court stressed that orders must be placed as soon as administrative approval is granted."This has already dragged on too long without any tangible outcome," the bench remarked, while directing authorities to also apply for all necessary licences from competent authorities within a week to avoid further procedural Government Pleader Deepak Thakare submitted a letter from the state dated May 6, stating that a new administrative nod would be issued within three weeks. "Whatever the cost may be, a new administrative approval for installation of the linear accelerator will be issued within the stipulated time," he told the machine's original sanctioned cost was Rs23.20 crore, but with a 35% tax imposed by the central govt, the final cost rose to Rs45 crore. Last month, the court directed the state to allocate an additional Rs25 crore to bridge the funding gap. It pointed out that while Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar GMCH has two such machines, Nagpur has none, thus affecting the cancer the last hearing, the Nagpur district administration informed that it was unable to arrange the additional Rs25 crore required for the procurement of a linear accelerator for the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). This was due to the exhaustion of available funds and an escalation in equipment Advocate Firdos Mirza appeared for the state, Anup Gilda assisted the court as amicus curiae, and Advocate Sudhir Puranik represented the NMRDA. The next hearing is scheduled for June 10.
Time of India
06-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
NMC faces 1 cr penalty for ignoring HC orders on rehab
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Tuesday lashed out at the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) for failing to act on its repeated directives related to the rehabilitation of licensee vendors displaced by the Ganesh Tekdi railway station parking plaza project. The division bench comprising Justices Avinash Gharote and Abhay Mantri warned that it was inclined to impose a penalty of 1 cr on the civic body for its "insensitive" conduct and disregard for court court was hearing a petition filed by Syed Sakir Ali Abdul Ali and 34 others through Counsel Mahesh Dhatrak, who challenged the prolonged delay in implementing a revised proposal under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) proposal, crucial for rehabilitating affected shopkeepers, was to be submitted by NMC to the state govt as directed by the court on February 27. However, as of May 5, the civic body failed to send the required proposal.
Time of India
04-05-2025
- Time of India
Nagpur: HC orders demolition of encroachment on road, fines developer
NAGPUR : The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Tuesday ordered Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-operative Society to demolish illegal constructions —including a substation, transformer, and water treatment plant — erected on a 24-metre-wide Development Plan (DP) road in a township at mouza Harpur on Umred Road . The court also imposed a Rs5 lakh fine, directing it be paid to Raman Science Centre and Planetarium within one week. A division bench comprising justices Avinash Gharote and Abhay Mantri was hearing a petition filed by local resident Pranali Puttewar. The court found that despite the society's undertaking in 2019 to remove the encroachments, it failed to act, in violation of prior directives and land-use laws. Rejecting arguments that the structures served residents and involved no commercial exploitation, the court held that construction on land earmarked as a public road under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act cannot be justified or regularised without a formal modification of the development plan. The bench cited the 2017 demolition notice issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) and emphasised that the society knowingly encroached on land meant for public use. It further dismissed the society's reliance on the Gunthewari Act, ruling that the layout approvals were not granted under its provisions. The court concluded that allowing such encroachments would set a dangerous precedent, undermining urban planning. It directed that the illegal structures be removed within four months, with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (MSEDCL) providing assistance. Should the society fail to act, the NMC must carry out the demolition within a reasonable time thereafter. "We cannot condone the illegality committed by the society of making illegal construction of substation/transformer/water treatment plant on the land of 24 meters wide DP road, as it would be setting an absolutely bad precedent, on the basis of which, builders would have a free hand to present a fait accompli, after having committed an illegality," the judges said while allowing the petition.
Time of India
02-05-2025
- Time of India
HC Orders Demolition of Encroachment on Road, Slaps Rs5 Lakh Fine on Developer
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Tuesday ordered Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-operative Society to demolish illegal constructions —including a substation, transformer, and water treatment plant — erected on a 24-metre-wide Development Plan (DP) road in a township at mouza Harpur on Umred Road. The court also imposed a Rs5 lakh fine, directing it be paid to Raman Science Centre and Planetarium within one week. A division bench comprising justices Avinash Gharote and Abhay Mantri was hearing a petition filed by local resident Pranali Puttewar. The court found that despite the society's undertaking in 2019 to remove the encroachments, it failed to act, in violation of prior directives and land-use laws. Rejecting arguments that the structures served residents and involved no commercial exploitation, the court held that construction on land earmarked as a public road under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act cannot be justified or regularised without a formal modification of the development plan. The bench cited the 2017 demolition notice issued by Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) and emphasised that the society knowingly encroached on land meant for public use. It further dismissed the society's reliance on the Gunthewari Act, ruling that the layout approvals were not granted under its provisions. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The court concluded that allowing such encroachments would set a dangerous precedent, undermining urban planning. It directed that the illegal structures be removed within four months, with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (MSEDCL) providing assistance. Should the society fail to act, the NMC must carry out the demolition within a reasonable time thereafter. "We cannot condone the illegality committed by the society of making illegal construction of substation/transformer/water treatment plant on the land of 24 meters wide DP road, as it would be setting an absolutely bad precedent, on the basis of which, builders would have a free hand to present a fait accompli, after having committed an illegality," the judges said while allowing the petition. High Court Ruling – Key Points - Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-operative Society ordered to demolish illegal structures on 24-metre DP road - Structures include electric substation, transformer, water treatment plant - Rs5 lakh fine imposed; to be paid to Raman Science Centre within one week - Demolition within four months at society's cost - MSEDCL to assist in removing electrical infrastructure - If society fails, NMC will carry out demolition - Court rejects justification citing public benefit - Gunthewari Act defence dismissed, no approvals granted - Encroachments condemned as 'bad precedent'
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Bombay HC strikes down GST demand on TDR used by real estate developer
NAGPUR : In an important ruling for Maharashtra's real estate sector , the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court set aside a GST demand issued to a city-based developer, holding that no taxable transfer of development rights occurred under the agreement in question. The decision offers clarity on the tax implications of development agreements in the real estate sector. The division bench of justices Avinash Gharote and Abhay Mantri delivered the ruling while allowing a petition filed by Shrinivasa Realcon, which challenged a show-cause notice issued on August 14, 2024, and a consequent GST order dated December 10, 2024. The demand pertained to a development agreement executed on April 7, 2022, for constructing a residential complex on an 8,000 sq ft plot at mouza Lendra. The developer was appointed by the landowner for a consideration of Rs7 crore and two flats. Senior counsel Akshay Naik, assisted by Abhishek Bhoot, argued that the project did not involve any transfer or purchase of development rights or floor space index (FSI) from external sources. Instead, the construction was based solely on the existing FSI or any statutory increase. Entry 5B of the GST notification dated June 28, 2017, amended on March 29, 2019, allows taxation of services involving the transfer of TDR or FSI for construction purposes. However, the court noted the GST law does not define a 'transfer of development right'. It referred to Clause 11.2 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, which outlines TDR as compensation in FSI granted by a planning authority, not applicable in the present case. The bench concluded that the development agreement lacked any reference to the transfer of such rights and rejected the department's reliance on Clause 18 of the contract, which merely required compliance under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. Declaring the transaction outside the purview of Entry 5B, the court quashed both the show-cause notice and the final order. "The transaction contemplated does not fall within Entry 5B of the notification of June 28, 2017, as amended by another notification of March 29, 2019. Neither the show-cause notice nor the consequent order can be sustained," the judges stated in their order, thereby setting them aside. Key takeaways from HC verdict: - There was no actual trading of transfer of development rights (TDR) in the agreement - Entry 5B of GST notification could not be invoked in case - GST Act does not define 'transfer of development rights' - Developer used existing FSI or statutory increase, not external TDR - Clause 18 of agreement was not proof of transfer - Set aside both show-cause notice and final tax order
