TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Quashes High Court Judgments, Directs Prosecution</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court judgments, and directed the prosecutions against the accused respondents to proceed in ... - Issues:1. Legality of prosecutions by Delhi Development Authority under the Delhi Development Act, 1957.2. Interpretation of Section 14 of the Development Act regarding land and building use.3. Validity of quashing criminal prosecutions by the High Court.4. Role of Master Plan in determining building use and prosecution under the Development Act.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court heard multiple civil and criminal appeals challenging prosecutions by the Delhi Development Authority under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The issue revolved around the alleged violation of Section 14 of the Development Act by various land and building owners in Delhi. The High Court judgments differed on the legality of these prosecutions, leading to a common judgment by the Supreme Court.2. The interpretation of Section 14 of the Development Act was crucial in determining the legality of land and building use. The High Court emphasized that the inhibition in Section 14 applies after the Master Plan comes into operation, regulating land and building use in conformity with the plan. The Court highlighted the significance of the Master Plan in prescribing building use within different zones under the Act.3. The High Court had quashed several criminal prosecutions based on the interpretation of the Master Plan and its specification of building use. However, the Supreme Court found that determining building use under the Master Plan was primarily a question of fact. The Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by prematurely deciding on the legality of the prosecutions, which should have been left to the criminal court for proper evaluation of evidence.4. The role of the Master Plan in defining building use under the Development Act was a central issue. The Supreme Court clarified that while the Master Plan guides building use, the determination of specific building use and penal liability under the Act requires a comprehensive assessment of facts and evidence. The Court emphasized that the criminal court is responsible for evaluating whether the prosecution has proven the alleged violations under Section 14 of the Act.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court judgments, and directed that the prosecutions against the accused respondents proceed in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the importance of factual determinations regarding building use under the Master Plan and highlighted the role of the criminal court in assessing the evidence to establish penal liability under the Development Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
