<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (2) TMI 2112 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458168</link>
    <description>Section 312 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 prohibits erection of structures on a street or over drainage or other municipal utilities without the Commissioner&#039;s permission, and Section 314 authorises removal of such unauthorised structures without notice. The stalls in question were found to be on a sewer line or chamber, with no sanctioned plan or proof of the Commissioner&#039;s permission, so their removal was lawful. Health licences did not validate the construction or restrict action under Section 314. As the removal was valid, there was no basis for mandamus directing restoration, alternate allotment, or other relief under Article 226.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2024 08:36:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 2112 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458168</link>
      <description>Section 312 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 prohibits erection of structures on a street or over drainage or other municipal utilities without the Commissioner&#039;s permission, and Section 314 authorises removal of such unauthorised structures without notice. The stalls in question were found to be on a sewer line or chamber, with no sanctioned plan or proof of the Commissioner&#039;s permission, so their removal was lawful. Health licences did not validate the construction or restrict action under Section 314. As the removal was valid, there was no basis for mandamus directing restoration, alternate allotment, or other relief under Article 226.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>