Having dealt with the concept of plinth area and its applicability in the backdrop of the provision, we are required to scan the definition of building. As noted earlier, building has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Act to mean a house, out-house, garage or any other structure, or part thereof. The scheme underlying Chapter VII of the Act that provides for settlement of disputes clearly suggests that it is only when there are multiple transactions which can be described as business transactions that any dispute arising out of such transactions would come within the purview of Section 64.

The construction can be masonry, bricks, wood, metal or other material. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Supreme Court advocates had inherent power to cancel the bail granted to a person accused of a bailable offence and that, in a proper case, such power can and must be exercised in the interests of justice. Thus the point of law which falls to be considered in the present appeal is whether, in the case of a person accused of a bailable offence where bail has been granted to him under s.

This Court observed as under: It does not include portable shelter or sheds including a latrine which is not attached to the main structure. The Explanation should not be read as a negative provision, detrimental and fatal to cases where there are separate owners of the apartments, for that is not the basic object and purpose behind the Explanation II to Section 2(e) of the Act. The said Explanation lays the stipulation that when a building consists of different apartments or flats owned by different persons and cost of the building has to be met by all such persons, each apartment or flat is deemed to be a separate building.

It was never contended in these proceedings that the Imperial Hotel was not an " hotel " within the Act. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159, this Court took serious concern of the litigants coming to this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution instead of first moving the appropriate High Court for the redressal of their grievances. Explanation II is the fulcrum that would determine the question that has emanated for consideration in this case.

561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed, the bail-bond executed by the appellant was cancelled and an order was passed directing that the appellant be arrested forthwith and committed to 156 1228 custody. The Explanation II to Section 2(e) would not be applicable and the respondent has to be treated as the sole owner. who heard these applications took the view that, under s. It is a benevolent and beneficial provision which has not been enacted to curtail and nullify what is logical and apparent to reason.

It is clear to me that the Imperial Hotel is an hotel however the word may be understood. The learned Judges then considered the material produced before the Court and came to the conclusion that, in the present case, it would not be safe to permit the appellant to be at large. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Special leave granted to the appellant has, however, been limited to the question of the construction of s. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it can be cancelled in a proper case by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under s.

Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that as there has been no contribution of funds at the time of construction. This question is no doubt of considerable importance and its decision would depend upon the construction of the relevant sections of the Code. That word has therefore to be understood in its ordinary sense. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court in appeal by special leave. As we perceive, Explanation II to Section 2(e) takes care of a situation where the building is constructed and there are different owners who have paid the purchase price for their respective apartments.

In the light of such legislative intent, the provisions of General Clauses Act, could not be called in aid by the appellant-society. In the case of Kanubhai Brahmbhatt vs. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that Section 64(1)(c) had no application to the case at hand not only because a single transaction did not constitute business but also because the legislature had deliberately used the expression business transactions to make it clear that it is only a series of transactions that would bring the dispute arising out of such transactions within the purview of Section 64.

That is why the application made by the complainant invoking the High Court's inherent power under s. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On a dissection of the said provision, it appears that said Explanation would apply when there is a building; that the building must consist of different flats or apartments; that each apartment or flat must be owned by different persons and cost of construction of the building must have been met jointly, and in such cases plinth area cannot be clubbed.

The Act does not define an hotel.