Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: maharashtra ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act 1960 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.042 seconds)

Jun 14 2000 (HC)

Sadanand S. Varde and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR510; 2001(1)BomCR261; [2001]247ITR609(Bom)

..... way to multi-storeyed buildings. at the tip of this peninsular piece of land are situated the ruins of an ancient portuguese fort known as the bandra fort, which fort has been declared a protected monument under section 4(3) of the maharashtra ancient monuments and archaeological act, 1960 (mah. xii of 1961). there has been considerable development on this peninsular piece of land and a developed road ..... of the owner, the sixth respondent. by another general body resolution passed on march 14, 1974, the garden and in return the sixth respondent was left free to develop the remaining plot without any claim on floor space index of the surrendered 7,000 square yards portion of the concerned plot.7. the modification made in the proposal was challenged by ..... ,000 square yards from r. s. no. 6 and about 18,000 square yards from c. s. nos. 416 and 417, representing the eastern slope, were reserved for garden. the remaining land, including the plot which is the subject-matter of the writ petition, was to be in the residential zone. the development plan also incorporated a loop comprising a 120 ..... portion of the scheme which is sanctioned by the court. but for the sanction of the court, the scheme would remain wholly unenforceable, consequently, it does not answer the description of the expression 'agreement' contemplated under section 269uc of the income-tax act.it is contended that a scheme of amalgamation could not amount to an 'agreement' within the meaning of section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2006 (HC)

Vidarbha Heritage Society and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2006(4)BomCR577

..... to be dismissed.[f] the state is not competent to clone the provisions of the maharashtra act no. xii/1961. the maharashtra ancient monuments & archaeological sites & remains act, 1960.[g] the aims and objects of the amending act no. 39 of 1994 need not be seen in the light of preamble of the maharashtra regional & town planning act, 1965 and rule-making power therein. the aims and objects as seen from the statement ..... of objects and reasons of the amending act 39 of 1994 as stated in the act are quoted below ..... or infusing in the state any special power to further legislature on preservation of structures on the lines, or as per the scheme of the provisions of ancient monuments, archaeological sites and remains etc., as is contemplated in the maharashtra act no. xii of 1961 or central enactment on the subject. the very purpose and object, as can be seen from joint reading of statement of objects .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2006 (HC)

Naiknaware and Associates and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2006(5)MhLj488

..... in this behalf.11. the ancient monuments and archaeological sites remains act, 1958 shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1958', the ancient monuments and archaeological sites & remains rules, 1959 shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the rules of 1959', the bombay provincial municipal corporation act, 1949 shall be referred to as 'bpmc act, the maharashtra regional town planning act shall hereinafter be referred to ..... 6.1992 in relation to construction activity in and around ancient monuments in pune. it is pertinent to note that in this communication reference was made to alleged unauthorized construction near agakhan palace and attention of the concerned was invited to the provisions of archaeological sites & remains act, 1958 and the rules of 1959. the communication mentions ..... three centrally protected monuments in the city of pune, viz. pataleshwar caves, shaniwarwada and agakhan palace. according to the department construction in ..... notification dated 16.6.1992 is liable to be struck down as it is ultra vires the act under which it is issued. he challenged the constitutional validity of rules 31 to 33 of the ancient monuments and archaeological sites & remains rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1959, being ultra vires the provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 2014 (HC)

Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... the respondent no.5 to him, seeking assistance in the matter.4. the learned asg appearing on advance notice stated that as far as the provisions of the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958 are concerned, the same are applicable to sites, monuments, artifacts more than 100 years old and the subject artifacts do not qualify to be considered under the said ..... act. it is further stated that the petitioner ought to approach the state government for the relief required, as the state government alone would have jurisdiction over the matter. ..... , by an advocate, filed as a public interest litigation (pil), seeks a direction to the union of india (uoi) through the secretary, ministry of culture and to the archaeological survey of india (asi) to provide financial, technical and other assistance necessary to preserve, protect and maintain the articles belonging to dr. baba saheb bhim rao ambedkar kept at ..... petitioner, i) that the said private museum has been set up by the respondent no.5 indian buddhist council on land ad-measuring 11.36 acres, in chicholi, nagpur, maharashtra; ii) that the said respondent no.5 sought assistance from the central government for preservation and maintenance of articles belonging to dr. ambedkar exhibited in the said museum; iii) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2008 (HC)

Mahesh Vs. State of M.P.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT47

..... with crime no. 29/07 registered at p.s. kuthla distt. katni in respect of the offences punishable under sections 395 of the ipc and 30(iii) of the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958. the corresponding trial is pending as s.t. no. 79/07 in the court of end asj, katni. on 23-1-2007 they were first produced before the ..... completely lost sight of the object, scope and effect of the proviso as explained by the supreme court in a subsequent decision rendered in uday mohanlal acharya v. state of maharashtra : 2001crilj1832 , as under:accused has an indefeasible right to be released on bail when investigation is not complete within the specified period- in order to avail of such right, accused .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2007 (HC)

Janhit Manch and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR86; 2008(1)BomCR670

..... a conclusion that such misreading of the provisions by the asi is detrimental to the object and purpose of the act itself i.e. the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958 and the rules framed therein i.e. the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains rules, 1959. if the act and the rules are read together, no ravi ramkrishnan construction is permitted within the prohibited area and, therefore, any ..... find that there is no legal impediment in the way of the archaeological survey of india to take action in respect of such encroachers not only in mumbai and thane district, but the asi department can proceed to take action in respect of such monuments all over the state of maharashtra.in so far as the constructions which have been undertaken or proposed ..... prohibited zone and submit a preliminary report of action taken to this court within a period of weeks. we further direct that the state government and the competent authorities under maharashtra slum area (improvement, clearance and redevelopment) act, 1971 shall not notify any prohibited zone of asi as notified slum area eligible for rehabilitation under the slum rehabilitation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2019 (SC)

Shiv Darshan Singh Vs. Rakesh Tiwari Director General,

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... said expression has to be interpreted keeping in view the mandate of article 49 of the constitution and the objects sought to be achieved by enacting 1958 act, i.e. preservation of ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites and remains of national importance. this would necessarily imply that such other work or project must be in larger public interest in contrast to private interest. in other ..... of monuments at fatehpur sikri; mahabalipuram; golconda fort, hyderabad (andhra pradesh); thousands pillared temple, hanamkonda, distt. warangal (andhra pradesh); shershah tomb, sasaram (bihar); rock edict of ashoka, kopbal, distt. raichur (karnatka); gomateshwara statue at sravanbelgola, district hassan (karnataka); elephanta caves, gharapur, district kolba (maharashtra). contempt petition (civil)no.697 of2017in ca no.2431 of2006shiv darshan singh vs. rakesh tiwari, director general, archaeological survey ..... of india (asi) & ors. 8 8. by virtue of the notification, areas of 100 and 200 metres from the ancient monument jantar mantar, new delhi stood declared to be prohibited and regulated areas .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2009 (HC)

Emca Construction Co. Thr. M.P. Gupta Vs. Archelological Survey of Ind ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 164(2009)DLT515

..... nearly 450 year old humayun's tomb is a major tourist attraction in delhi. it has been declared as a world heritage monument. it is a protected monument within the meaning of the ancient monuments archaeological sites and remains act, 1958 (the 1958 act.) and the ancient monuments archaeological sites and remains rules, 1959 (the 1959 rules.). consequent to a notification issued on 16th june 1992 by the central government, an area of 100m ..... similar declarations already made in respect of monuments at fatehpur sikri; mamallapuram; golconda fort, hyderabad, andhra pradesh; thousand pillared temple, hanamkonda, district warangal, andhra pradesh; sher shah's tomb, sasaram, bihar; rock edict of ashoka, kopbal, district raichur, karnataka; fort wall, bijapur, karnataka; gomateswara statute at sravanabelagola, district hassan, karnataka; elephanta caves, gharapuri, district kolaba, maharashtra.[no. f.8/2/90-m ..... the power to declare any ancient monument as a protected monument. this was followed by the act of 1951. under section 126 of the states reorganization act, 1956, monuments protected under the 1904 act situated in part c states (including delhi) were declared monuments of national importance. in 1958, the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act was enacted. under section 2(j) of the 1958 act, protected monument means any ancient monument which is declared to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2010 (HC)

The Indian National Trust for Architectural and Cultural Heritage (int ...

Court : Chennai

..... importance by the state governments as well. the learned counsel submitted that in that case, the supreme court had taken note of the ancient monuments act and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958. the definition of 'ancient monument' under section 2(a) of the said act will well apply to the present building and it would be a heritage building. he submitted that by destruction and demolition of heritage buildings ..... , the various reports in this regard and also the provisions of law.10. the tamil nadu ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act (25 of 1966) was enacted to provide for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains other than those of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects. section 2 of ..... .2009, this court directed the government to form a heritage conservation committee within three months, if possible, since such a committee has been formed at least in the state of maharashtra, whose opinion is sought for, when the question of demolition of heritage buildings is in issue.6. on 1.4.2010, by g.o. ms. no. 85, housing and urban .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 2007 (HC)

Vinay Mohan Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008CriLJ1672; 146(2008)DLT14

..... general concern,(ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes;(b) any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in-(i) any ancient monument within the meaning of the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958 (24 if 1958), or(ii)any temple, or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose ..... sex, or even to persons of more advanced years, thoughts of a most impure and libidinous character.19. in the decision reported as : 1970crilj1273 chandrakant kalyandas kakodkar v. state of maharashtra and ors. it was inter alias emphasized as under:the concept of obscenity would differ from country to country depending on the standards of morals of contemporary society. what is ..... -viz a photograph), issue has to be considered differently for the reason in the celebrated decision of the supreme court reported as : 1965crilj8 ranjit d.udeshi v. state of maharashtra the realities of popular permissiveness was reflected by the constitution bench of the supreme court. the supreme court spoke of 'new literary standards' and noticed that the world had moved ..... contained or embodied in it. dealing with the question as to what is 'obscene' the constitution bench of the supreme court in the case of ranjit udesh v. state of maharashtra : 1965crilj8 quoted with approval a passage of cockburn, [.]. in hicklin's case which laid down the test of obscenity in these words:.i think the test of obscenity is .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //