SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Mad) 997

A.RAMAMURTHI
P. N. Udani – Appellant
Versus
Corporation of Chennai rep. by its Assistant Engineer – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. K. Venkatasubramanian, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.Ramanlal, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. Petitioner/accused in S.T.C. No. 1032 of 1998 on the file of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai has-preferred the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the, proceedings.

2. The case in brief is as follows:-

The petitioner is the owner of property situated at Villivakkam village measuring about ?’acre and 66 cents bearing S. No. 172/2 and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.Chirag N Mehar to deal with the property absolutely to apply to authorities for getting-planning permission and to develop the same by constructing residential apartments. She also executed a Development Agreement on 26. 96 with Narendra Properties Limited agreeing for certain terms and conditions. The developer applied to the CMDA and Corporation for planning permission on 296. The CMDA requested the developer to pay the development charges and security deposit and the same was paid. The CMDA requested the developer to gift the OSR area to Corporation of Chennai free of cost. Since the planning permission was delayed for the purpose of executing bank guarantee, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 1367 of 1997 before this Court and by an order dated








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top