Developer Can’t Transfer Building Conveyance to Another Firm: Bombay HC
Three decades after a building was constructed in a Mumbai suburb, the bid by its owner to convey the property to another firm to develop another part of the plot has come under the Bombay High Court’s scanner. In an interim order, Justice Roshan Dalvi restrained the developers from constructing on or redeveloping the plot except an area of 324sqm, which has two outhouses.
 
The judge also restrained the firm from creating any third-party rights on the property except allowing the existing tenants of the two outhouses to reside there. “(The firms) seek to put up construction far in excess of the area of the two old structures (outhouses).
They seek to utilise the FSI of the entire plot of land, which belongs to the society. They also seek to load TDR upon the new construction. This they cannot do. The society has rightly sought to restrain such construction,” the judge said.
 
The dispute relates to a plot of land in Bandra spread over 1,310sqm owned by Paresh Associates. In 1984, a building was constructed by demolishing an old structure. Another portion of the land, which had two outhouses with five tenants, did not opt for redevelopment. 

User

Noida Buildings with No Parking Face Fines & Lease Cancellation
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) has decided to impose heavy fines or cancel the lease of developers who have not constructed parking lots. The lack of parking in residential and commercial complexes has forced visitors and employees to park on the roads which leads to traffic snarls. 
 
According to estimates, there are over 50 illegal parking lots in Noida. Various roads in the city have been turned into parking lots. The arterial road in Sector 27 has been encroached upon for parking by Kailash Hospital. The growing space crunch for parking has given birth to the parking mafia which charges usurious rates from vehicle-owners.

User

Regulation, Call Data & Privacy
Court stops SEBI’s fishing expedition

The Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has been fighting a long battle with telecom operators over its rights, as a regulator, to demand telephone call details of persons being investigated for financial offences. While some telecom companies parted with the data, others resisted. However, SEBI obtained the powers to seek call data records (CDR) and began to make thousands of requisitions since 2009. 
 
The matter eventually landed in court. The question then was: What data can the regulator requisition? Can it go on a fishing expedition and demand data on suspicion of illegal activity? Or should it restrict its demand to people under investigation? In April 2014, the Bombay High Court delivered a landmark judgement that laid down the mandatory safeguards. It has said that SEBI can only call for CDRs of persons who are subject to an investigation or inquiry and nobody else. 
 
Moreover, only a ‘duly authorised’ official can call for the data and he will have to record an opinion, in writing, on the file about why the data is relevant to the investigation. This means that there can be no fishing inquiry and every SEBI official cannot ask for call records on a whim or suspicion. It also means that SEBI will have to put an end to its practice where even the most junior officers were sending out thousands of demands for call records with a simple email or letter 

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)