List of Court Cases

Sl. No.	Date of Judgment	Parties/ Name	Case No & Year	Year	Cour
1		Om Prakash Mittal Vs COA	AIR 1983 Del 223	1983	Delhi High Court
2		Tulya Gogoi Vs Association of Architects, Assam	(1999) 3 Gau LR 179	1999	High Court of Gauhati
3		COA Vs Manohar Krishnaji Ranade and Ors.	SPL No. 5387 of 2005 [Against Orders of Bombay High Court in WP 1830 of 1988, 2296 of 2001 and 6306 of 2004] 20041119 order for 6306/2004	2005	Supreme Court of India
4		Mukesh Kumar Manhar and Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.	2006 (1) MPLJ 238	2006	Madhya Pradesh High Court
5		Anil Kumar Sharma & Sudhir Vohra Vs Union Of India, COA & RSP Design &Consultants Pvt Ltd.	WP 3975 of 2012	2012
6		BDP Design Vs Union of India and Ors.	WP (C) 1435	2014	Delhi High Court
7		Sudhir Vohra Vs Union Of India	WP 2069 of 2014	2014
8		I.I.A. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat Housing Board)	Application No. 1111 of 1999  and No. 1927 of 2000	2000	Gujarat High Court
9	02-04-1980	Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Shri Ramkumar Bhardwaj & Ors.	LPA 59-75	1975	Delhi High Court
10	02-04-1980	Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.	18 (1980) DLT 283	1980	Delhi High Court
11	22-04-1983	Municipal Corporation Vs Shri Ramkumar Bhardwaj & Others	Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 6469 and 9396 of 1980 A/N 22-04-1983	1980	Supreme Court of India
12	12-08-1986	Smt Meghana A P Desai Vs Union of India  and Shri Vikas Vithal Desai Vs UOI	WP (C) Nos. 123 of 1985 and 125 of 1985	1985	Bombay High Court, Panaji Bench Goa
13	08-02-2000	President ACE & NACE Vs Union of India and Ors.	CWP 4689 of 1996	1996
14	14-10-2003	T R Krishnan Vs State of Kerala and Ors.	OP No. 33507 of 2000	2000	High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
15	29-11-2004	Indian Institute of Architects Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr Manohar Krishnaji Ranade Vs Pune Mun. Corp. Krishnaji Shankar Tandale Vs Pune Mun. Corp.	WP No 1830 of 1988 4692 of 1990 and  5600 of 1997	1988 1990 1997	Bombay High Court
16	29-11-2004	Association of Municipal Architects Vs Commissioner, Municipal Corp and Ors.	WP No. 2296 of 2001	2001	Bombay High Court
17	29-11-2004	Alex Michael Faroz Vs ____	WP 6306 of 2004	2004	Bombay High Court
18	02-08-2005	Mukesh Kumar Manhar and another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others	2005(4) MPHT 270	2005	Madhya Pradesh High Court
19	23-09-2013	Premendra Raj Mehta and Ors Vs NBCC & Ors	WP (C) 2106 of 2012	2012	Delhi High Court
20	25-11-2013	COA Vs Premendra Raj Mehta and Ors,	LPA 854 of 2013	2013	Delhi High Court
21	06-01-2014	COA Vs Union of India and Ors. together with Architecture For All and Anr Vs Union of India and Ors., [CEAI & Ors were Intervenors]	WP (C) 1042 of 2006 WP (C) 4451-52 of 2006	2006 2006	Delhi High Court
22	04-04-2014	Association of Civil Engineers of Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal Unit) Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Another	WP No. 6588 of 2013	2013	High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
23	17-04-2014	Sudhir Vohra Vs Union of India and Ors.	WP (C) 2362 of 2014	2014	Delhi High Court
24	20-05-2014	Sudhir Vohra Vs Union Of India and Ors.	LPA 378 of 2014	2014	Delhi High Court
25	10-11-2014***	Mala Mukherjee Vs UOI & Ors.	WP 1943 (W) of 2014	2014	Calcutta High Court
26	05-12-2014	Maj Sandeep Donald Shah (Retd) Vs Union of India	WP (C) No. 376 of 2014	2014	Supreme Court of India
27	22-12-2014	Practicing Architects Association of Marathwada Vs MHRD, GOI and Ors	WP 2909 of 2001	2001	Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
28	08-02-2017	IIA Vs NBCC & Ors. and IIA Vs UOI and Ors.	WP (C) 8635 of 2016 CM Appeal No.35579 of 2016 and  WP (C) 9702 of 2016 CM Appeal No.38834 of 2016	2016	Delhi High Court
29	14-02-2017	COA Vs Manohar Krishnaji Ranade and Ors.	CA Nos. 3346 – 3348 of 2005	2005	Supreme Court of India
30	11-09-2017	COA Vs Indian Institute of Architects	CA No. 12649 of 2017	2017	Supreme Court of India
31	25-04-2018*	Sudhir Vora Vs Registrar of Companies and Ors. [CEAI & Ors were Intervenors]	WP (C) No. 934 of 2012, and  CM No. 18315 of 2014	2012 2014	Delhi High Court (Justice Rekha Palli)
32	17-03-2020**	COA Vs Mr. Mukesh Goyal & Ors.	CA Nos. 1819 of 2020 [Arising out of SLP(C) No 18752 of 2014)] with  CA Nos. 1820-1822 of 2020 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25524-25526 of 2014]	2020 2020	Supreme Court of India

Notes:*

The High Court dismissed the contention of the Petitioner

Para 43 of the judgement

“Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the Act only prohibits the use of the title and style of ‘architect’ by unregistered natural persons or juristic entities. It does not prevent unregistered persons, including juristic entities, from rendering architectural services or mentioning the same as one of their objectives in their MOA”

** 

The Supreme Court come to the conclusion that:

Para 33 of the judgement

“For the above reasons, we affirm the decision of the High Court of Allahabad on the first question and hold that Section 37 of the Architects Act does not prohibit individuals not registered under the Architects Act from undertaking the practice of architecture and its cognate activities”. (emphasis added)

Para 39 of the judgement. 

“For the reasons stated above, in response to the first question we affirm the decision of the High Court of Allahabad and hold that Section 37 of the Architects Act does not prohibit individuals not registered under the Architects Act from undertaking the practice of architecture and its cognate activities”. (emphasis added)

***

Para 43 of the judgement

“The COA, without doubt, is a creature of the Act. Subservience of the COA to the Govt. follows from the scheme of the Act. A power to order disqualification has been conferred on the Govt. by section 20 of the Act cannot be usurped by the COA. A creature of a statute cannot act in a manner to bring about a result desired by it unless the subject statute empowers it to do so. Also, if power is given under a statute to do a certain thing in a certain way., the thing must be done in that way or not at all. These propositions are too well-settled to require reference to any authority. If indeed what the COA recommends has substance, it is for the Govt. to remedy the malaise in the manner ordained by section 20 but not otherwise. Introduction of the concept of the test to test the ability of the petitioner to have her name registered is foreign insofar as the statute is concerned. It seems, the COA has made an attempt to rise higher than its source and that is impermissible for a creature of a statute”.

Para 46 of the judgement

“A word or two about the misadventure of the COA has to be said before I part. However, pious and laudable the intention of the COA in maintaining basic standards of architectural education might be, it ought to realize that in the guise of larger public interest it cannot bypass or overlook the statute by which it was created”.

Text/ Dates highlighted need to be ascertained

Prepared by Mr. Avinash V Shirode and Mr. A P Mull