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

Copyright @ 2021 Consulting Engineers Association of India. All rights reserved.

PHP Code Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com