https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200432 Limitation for suits challenging municipal demolition orders begins when a clear and unequivocal order threatening demolition is passed, not when the demolition is later executed. Notices under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, followed by orders directing removal of unauthorised structures forthwith and warning of demolition at risk and cost, were held to give rise to an immediate cause of action. Section 527(1)(b) required the suit to be filed within six months from that accrual. The view that limitation starts only upon actual demolition was rejected because it would defer the statutory clock and create uncertainty. The suits filed after six months were therefore time-barred. en-us Fri, 02 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:26:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200432 Limitation for suits challenging municipal demolition orders begins when a clear and unequivocal order threatening demolition is passed, not when the demolition is later executed. Notices under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, followed by orders directing removal of unauthorised structures forthwith and warning of demolition at risk and cost, were held to give rise to an immediate cause of action. Section 527(1)(b) required the suit to be filed within six months from that accrual. The view that limitation starts only upon actual demolition was rejected because it would defer the statutory clock and create uncertainty. The suits filed after six months were therefore time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200432