Skip to main content

RTI covers building plans of private firms

The Bombay High Court has ruled that information regarding development plans of a building company can be disclosed by the municipal authorities on an application under the Right to Information Act. In this case, Ferani Hotels Ltd and Nusli Wadia, the two parties had an agreement to develop certain lands in Mumbai. The relationship turned sour and the agreement was terminated, leading to a suit in the high court. Meanwhile, Wadia moved an application before the public information officer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking details of the architectural plans and reports submitted by the company to the municipal commissioner and his approval. When the information was denied, Wadia moved the state information commissioner, who ordered the release of the information. The company appealed to the high court, arguing that the information sought did not serve any social or public interest, it was only for private interest. Moreover, it would harm its business interest and would violate its intellectual property rights. The information was also trade secrets, the company argued. The commissioner rejected these contentions and maintained that the development plans were of public interest as they would affect citizens and buyers of flats and commercial units. The high court upheld this view and stated that the term 'information' included information relating to any private body. Development plans have to be submitted to the municipal authorities for approval. The documents are part of public records," the judgment said.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/holy-books-gods-cannot-be-trademarks-115110800729_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more