https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812 The article examines municipal demolition and sealing disputes under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Master Plan-2000. It states that the property was not shown to be in commercial use in 1962 and that unauthorized construction existed beyond sanctioned plans. It further notes that a tenant or builder not responsible for the work was not entitled to prior notice, while notice signed by a delegated officer remained valid. The text also records that civil suits were not maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy, the Article 14 challenge to Master Plan-2000 failed, and concealment and falsehood disentitled the plaintiffs to interim injunction. It adds that demolition enforcement was not an unfettered discretion, no hostile discrimination was shown, and promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation could not defeat statutory action. en-us Thu, 18 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:17:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812 The article examines municipal demolition and sealing disputes under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Master Plan-2000. It states that the property was not shown to be in commercial use in 1962 and that unauthorized construction existed beyond sanctioned plans. It further notes that a tenant or builder not responsible for the work was not entitled to prior notice, while notice signed by a delegated officer remained valid. The text also records that civil suits were not maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy, the Article 14 challenge to Master Plan-2000 failed, and concealment and falsehood disentitled the plaintiffs to interim injunction. It adds that demolition enforcement was not an unfettered discretion, no hostile discrimination was shown, and promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation could not defeat statutory action. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 18 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198812