Indian Institute of Architects VS City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN
Indian Institute of Architects – Appellant
Versus
City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajeet Kulkarni
For the Respondent:Mr. Nitin V. Gangal with Mr. Ashok D. Kadam with Ms. Prerna Shukla, Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and Mr.Shamim Shaikh, Mr. B. V. Samant, Mr. A. A. Alaspukar, Mr. Tejesh Dande with Mr. Bharat Gadhavi, Ms. Nilima Sanglikar,

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Table of Contents

A	Prelude
B	Facts
C	Pleadings: Reply & Rejoinder Affidavits
D	Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
E	Submission on behalf of Respondent No.8
F	Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.5
G	Submissions on behalf of NMMC
H	Submissions on behalf of CIDCO
I	Submissions on behalf of State Government
J	Reasons and Conclusions
K	Relevant decisions of the Supreme Court Materials and judgments on sports

(A) Prelude

1. As to whether vacant land earmarked from the year 2003 for a ‘Government Sports Complex’ at Navi Mumbai, should be sacrificed for concretization and commercial exploitation, is the issue raised in the present Public Interest Litigation.

2. The Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai Center, is before the Court in this public interest litigation, inter alia assailing the actions of respondent No.1 – City Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘CIDCO’) and of the State of Maharashtra through its Sports Department and the Urban Development Department.

3. The subject matter of controversy is land a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAINIndian Institute of Architects – AppellantVersusCity & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN
Indian Institute of Architects – Appellant
Versus
City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. – Respondent