You may face fate similar to Supertech: Bombay HC to a Mumbai building developer


The Bombay Excessive Courtroom instructed a Mumbai constructing developer on Tuesday that it’d face the identical destiny because the not too long ago demolished Supertech towers after the latter insisted on persevering with development delay by the court docket.

Bombay Excessive Courtroom (File photograph)

The Bombay Excessive Courtroom on Tuesday instructed a constructing developer who insisted on persevering with development delay by the court docket that it’d face an analogous destiny because the Noida Supertech twin towers that not too long ago turned to mud after a court docket order.

The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik was listening to a public curiosity litigation (PIL) claiming the developer was encroaching on the land reserved for a playground in suburban Khar.

Earlier, the court docket had deputed an architect to go to the positioning the place the alleged unlawful development occurred, flouting a 1995 Supreme Courtroom order. The architect had been ordered to submit a report on the extent to which the development was carried out.

The court docket adjourned the matter for additional listening to on September 20 after the bench was knowledgeable that the report has been submitted by the architect.

ALSO READ | 5 decide SC bench to listen to Muslim girls’s plea towards nikah halala, polygamy

Nevertheless, the advocate showing for the developer sought the court docket to vacate the keep on development until demarcation of the land is full.

Chief Justice Datta replied to this request and stated, “Let’s wait. It’s possible you’ll face destiny like Supertech.”

Supertech twin towers situated in Noida had been demolished on August 28 following directives from the Supreme Courtroom. It was held that the dual towers – Apex (32 storeys) and Ceyane (29 storeys) had been illegally constructed.

Within the case of the Mumbai builder, the court docket got here down closely on the developer for continuing with the development regardless of an order from the Supreme Courtroom in 1995 directing that no development be carried out on the 6000 sq metres plot that was reserved as a playground within the 1992 growth plan.

— ENDS —