Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Renovation/Repairing Work Not Contrary to Provisions of Law; Cannot Be Treated as Unauthorized: Calcutta High Court Upholds Legality of Construction at Bidhan Sarani Premises

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the legality of renovation and construction work at premises no. 99A and 99C, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata. The court confirmed that the renovations undertaken were within the bounds of the law, thereby upholding the earlier decision of the Single Judge.

The appeal contested the Single Judge’s ruling regarding construction and renovation work which was alleged to be unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (KMC Act) and Building Rules under the KMC Act. However, the High Court’s judgment affirmed that the activities undertaken were legally permissible.

The appellant, Smt. Pritha Nandy, contested the legality of the renovation works done by the respondents, arguing they exceeded the permissible limits under local municipal regulations and involved unauthorized alterations such as the demolition of partition walls and the erection of steel joists. The property in question, shared with her sister-in-law and other tenants, was under dispute in multiple civil suits concerning property rights and tenant evictions.

Issue of Unauthorized Construction: The court noted the expert report from the Director General, Building, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, which stated that the renovations including the installation of steel joists and the demolition of partition walls were necessary for structural safety and did not violate municipal law.

Compliance with Building Rules and KMC Act: The court analyzed the Building Rules and provisions of the KMC Act. The Director General’s report concluded that the construction was to secure the building and ensure the safety of its occupants and the public.

Property Rights and Civil Litigation: The High Court emphasized that the focus of their judgment was on municipal and safety compliance and not on resolving the broader property dispute, which was already the subject of ongoing civil litigation.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the renovation and construction at the disputed property were legally permissible. The court underscored compliance with local municipal standards and upheld the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petitions.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Smt. Pritha Nandy Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Latest Legal News