- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court imposes costs of INR 5 lakhs on petitioner in connection with supertech twin towers
Supreme Court imposes costs of INR 5 lakhs on petitioner in connection with supertech twin towers
The bench comprised of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia
In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court imposed costs of INR 5 lakhs on the petitioner who approached the court seeking alternative directions other than demolition of the Supertech Twin Towers.
On 31.08.2021, by a detailed judgment, the Apex Court had directed the demolition of the illegal twin towers situated in Section 93A NOIDA, on the ground of serious violation of building regulations.
While hearing the PIL, a Bench noted that no petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be entertained once the judgment dated 31.08.2021 had attained finality.
Justice Chandrachud deprecated the petitioner for exercising right under Article 32 to seek directions contrary to the decision of the Apex Court.
The cost imposed was directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association so that the same can be utilized for the welfare of the Covid affected families of the SCBA members.
The Apex Court, on 31.08.2021, had upheld the order of demolition passed by the Allahabad High Court, directing the NOIDA Authority to demolish Towers 16 & 17 (Apex & Ceyane) situated on Plot 4, Sector 93A NOIDA within a period of four months from the date of filing of the certified copy. The High Court had also directed real estate firm Supertech to bear the expenses of the demolition and removal of the debris, failing which it shall be recovered by NOIDA Authority as arrears of land revenue.
It had also observed that the officials of the Supertech and the officers of the NOIDA Authority had exposed themselves for prosecution under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010. The High Court had also said that sanction for prosecution as required under section 49 of the U.P. Urban Development Act, 1973, as incorporated by section 12 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, would be approved by the Competent Authority within a period of three months from the date of filing the order's certified copy.
The division of High Court had directed SuperTech to reimburse the consideration received from the private parties, who have booked apartments in Apex & Ceyane (T 16 and 17) along with 14% interest compounded annually within four months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.