Bombay High Court Upholds BMC’s Demolition Notice on Mercedes-Benz Workshop Premises But Restricts Action to Illegal Additions — “Extensions So Extensive, It’s Difficult to Distinguish Old from New; Demolition Must Spare Original Structure and Permissible Repairs''

Bombay High Court Upholds BMC’s Demolition Notice on Mercedes-Benz Workshop Premises But Restricts Action to Illegal Additions — “Extensions So Extensive, It’s Difficult to Distinguish Old from New; Demolition Must Spare Original Structure and Permissible Repairs”

Court’s Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the BMC’s notice and demolition order under Section 351(1A) of the BMC Act. The Court upheld the BMC's action…
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Against Private Developer for Alternate Permanent Accommodation — “Developer Not ‘State’ Under Article 12; Dispute Is Private and Contractual, No Writ Under Article 226 Lies”

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Against Private Developer for Alternate Permanent Accommodation — “Developer Not ‘State’ Under Article 12; Dispute Is Private and Contractual, No Writ Under Article 226 Lies”

Court’s Decision The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions against a private developer for executing individual supplementary agreements for alternate permanent accommodation and compensation. The Court held…
Bombay High Court Holds Rejection of Compassionate Pension Arbitrary: “Absenteeism Not a Disentitling Misconduct, Petitioner’s Condition Warrants Special Consideration” — Directs Mumbai Port Authority to Grant Pension Under MBPT Pension Regulations, 1965

Bombay High Court Holds Rejection of Compassionate Pension Arbitrary: “Absenteeism Not a Disentitling Misconduct, Petitioner’s Condition Warrants Special Consideration” — Directs Mumbai Port Authority to Grant Pension Under MBPT Pension Regulations, 1965

Court’s Decision The Bombay High Court quashed the decision of the Mumbai Port Authority rejecting the petitioner’s request for compassionate pension and retirement benefits. It held that the petitioner was…