Latest news with #MRTP
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Philip Morris (PM) Gains on ZYN MRTP Review, Stifel Maintains Buy Rating
Philip Morris International Inc. (NYSE:PM) ranks among the . On June 13, Stifel analyst Matthew Smith maintained his Buy rating on Philip Morris International Inc. (NYSE:PM), continuing his positive outlook. The update came in response to a combination of Philip Morris's strategic posture and regulatory developments. One such development comes in the form of the FDA beginning its review of Philip Morris's Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) applications for ZYN products. This procedure, which comes after the previous PMTA approval, would give Philip Morris International Inc. (NYSE:PM) a competitive advantage in the tobacco industry by enabling it to offer ZYN with lower risk claims. Smith believes that ZYN has a good chance of being authorized under the MRTP, which is reinforced by the FDA's previous positive comments on similar products. Additionally, Philip Morris's growth profile remains robust when compared to its counterparts in the global consumer staples market, thanks to its shift to smoke-free products and smart pricing tactics. Philip Morris International Inc. (NYSE:PM) is a global tobacco company that provides services to consumers in over 180 countries. With Marlboro as its signature product, the firm stands out among the titans of 'Big Tobacco.' While we acknowledge the potential of PM as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. Read More: and Disclosure: None. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC rejects city Jain temple trust petition against demolition order
Mumbai: Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge by a Jain mandir trust in Vile Parle against a city civil court order, paving the way for the demolition of the temple structure. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now However, the HC extended its status quo on further demolition of the structure to 4 weeks, reports Swati Deshpande. Denying relief against the demolition notice from BMC, Justice Gauri Godse, hearing the appeal filed by Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust and others, said neither the city civil court order nor the civic action could be faulted. Only a wall stands on the property after the demolitions. However, after hearing senior counsel Surel Shah and advocate Nidhi Chheda for the temple trust and Drupad Patil for BMC, the HC extended the status quo for four weeks. Bombay high court has dismissed a challenge by a Jain mandir trust against a civil court order on demolition of the temple structure, although it extended its status quo on further razing by four weeks. On April 7, the city civil court had granted a stay on the demolition for a week. On April 16, the HC had also passed an urgent status quo order staying further demolition. The latest extension of the status quo is, however, subject to an undertaking given by the Trust to BMC to remove a temporary monsoon shed by Oct 31, 2025. BMC had issued a demolition notice in Dec 2024, which the Trust challenged. The HC said the civic notice could not be faulted as an earlier challenge to a notice first issued in 2005 had travelled all the way to the Supreme Court, and the notice was confirmed. Justice Godse, dictating the order, said, "In the absence of any prima facie case made out by the plaintiff (the temple trust), the impugned order passed by the city civil court cannot be faulted." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now She added that BMC had made repeated attempts to implement the notice under the MRTP (Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning) Act, as stated in its affidavit. "I don't see any illegality or perversity in the order; hence, the appeal is dismissed. " After the dismissal, Shah sought an extension of the status quo order. On May 14, the high court had permitted the Trust to file an application before BMC for permission to construct a shed for the monsoon. BMC's counsel Patil informed HC on Tuesday that the civic body, on such a plea, permitted a temporary shed with the condition that it must be removed by Oct 31. The HC said that based on the same condition, the status quo stands extended by four weeks.
Hindustan Times
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC orders demolition of illegal 5-building complex in Uran, SC grants interim stay
Mumbai: Observing that there was 'overwhelming evidence of material suppression, misleading actions, and apparent collusion' between property developers in Uran and officers of the City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco), the Bombay high court recently ordered the Navi Mumbai planning authority to demolish an illegally constructed complex of five buildings in the Chanje village in Uran taluka in four weeks. HC orders demolition of illegal 5-building complex in Uran, SC grants interim stay The village, about 15 minutes away from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority, has had improved connectivity with Mumbai since the inauguration of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link, otherwise known as Atal Setu, last year. 'We find this to be yet another case where the authorities have been complicit in promoting and tolerating illegal and unauthorised constructions, despite being consistently alerted through written complaints from citizens,' a division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata observed in their June 20 order. However, the respondents in the case—land owner Vivek Deshmukh and the developer, Vinayak Developers—approached the Supreme Court, which on June 27 granted an interim stay on the high court's order until it hears the case further. 'We make it clear that no eviction operation shall be carried out without the leave of this court,' the apex court said. The petition was filed in the high court by Uran residents Meenanath Patil and Vijay Jadhav, who contended that the developers had started construction on the plot in 2013 after obtaining a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Chanje gram panchayat, while being well aware that they could not have built on the land without Cidco's approval. In December 2013, the petitioners filed three complaints against the allegedly illegal construction before the Chanaje gram panchayat, stating that the construction obstructed access to their homes and a water well. These were followed by complaints to the Uran panchayat samiti and Raigad district collector. In 2014, Cidco inspected the site of the allegedly illegal construction and issued a notice to the developer for the removal of the unauthorised construction under sections of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. In January 2016, the planning authority also filed an FIR against the developers for the unauthorised construction. The petitioners' lawyer, Abhinandan Vagyani, told the court that Cidco also issued a similar notice to the developer in September 2024. 'By this time, an entire complex of five buildings had already been constructed illegally…' Vagyani said, adding that the notice was a mere formality. 'This is a classic case where the authorities have not just neglected their statutory obligations but have, by their conduct, actively permitted the perpetuation of illegal constructions…,' he told the court. Cidco's lawyer then drew the court's attention to an affidavit filed by its Controller of Unauthorized Constructions department, which stated that the planning authority had inspected the site in August 2024. 'Cidco officials found residents occupying illegally and unauthorisedly constructed buildings,' the affidavit said. A month later, the residents were issued notices under the MRTP Act, the lawyer said. The court was also informed that the regularisation application filed by the developers was rejected by Cidco on January 27 this year. The high court, however, said that Cidco had 'not only exhibited a deliberate inaction but has also taken superficial steps, further encouraging illegal constructions.' The judges said, 'By its conduct, Cidco has not only fostered unauthorised structures but has also jeopardised the interest of innocent flat purchasers who, despite investing their hard-earned money, have become victims of these illegal developments'. The court, however, added, 'These purchasers, who failed to exercise due diligence by conducting proper title searches and obtaining sanctioned plans, cannot be entirely absolved of their imprudence. Their recourse, if any, lies against the developer.' The court also ordered the authorities, including the Maharashtra government and Cidco, to take action against 'all concerned officers who have permitted the continuance of illegal construction since 2014 and take appropriate action against not only the officers of Cidco but also against the concerned developers…'. The high court also set aside an order of the civil judge, junior division, Uran, who had ordered a status quo in the case in December 2024.
Indian Express
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC dismisses pleas against govt decision to give Mayor's bungalow for Thackeray Memorial
The Bombay High Court Tuesday dismissed petitions challenging permission given by the Maharashtra Government to convert the Mayor's Bungalow in the city's Shivaji Park area into a memorial for late Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray. The court said that it did not find any valid ground for challenging the decision. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Sandeep V Marne noted that the work of setting up of the memorial is 'virtually complete' and that it is a policy decision by the government in which the court is not inclined to interfere. It said that the petitioners who filed the PILs were not opposed to the memorial itself and their challenge to the site chosen by the government was outside the scope of judicial review. 'When it comes to setting up of memorials for leaders and persons revered for their contribution, it is also well settled that such act constitutes a public purpose and decision of the executive to set up a memorial to commemorate such persons, is a matter of policy of the State,' the court said. A Government Resolution was issued in 2016 granting approval for setting up of the memorial at Mayor's Bungalow and for constitution of a public trust, the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Samiti, for the purpose and its construction is nearly complete. 'This court also takes notice of the fact that the work of setting up of the Memorial is virtually complete by now. Mr. Khambata (senior advocate appearing for the trust) a has taken us through the photographs of the site, which shows that the grandiose structure of Mayor's Bungalow has not only been kept intact, but has been restored. Its heritage significance is not disturbed. Since the work of setting up of the Memorial is virtually complete by now, this could be yet another reason for this Court not to interfere in the impugned decisions and actions,' the court said. Four Public Interest Litigations (PIL) by activists and NGO Jan Mukti Morcha, challenged the decision, claiming that the proposed construction violated the Environmental Protection Act and the Coastal Zone Regulation notification. The petitioners also claimed that since the bungalow, built in 1928, is a heritage structure, it cannot be converted into a memorial. Lawyer Uday Warunjikar appearing for the NGO submitted before the court that decision by the state government was arbitrary and that the petitioners are not opposing the setting up of a memorial for Thackeray but the site chosen and the manner in which the trust is set up, like a 'private trust'. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the state government opposed the petitions stating that the plot on which the memorial is to be constructed does not fall within green zone anymore, since it was earmarked for residential zone through a government notification, as per provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act. Senior advocate Darius Khambata appearing for the Trust said that all procedure was followed in the allotment of the bungalow. Senior advocate Anil Sakhare appearing for the BMC said the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee had given a no-objection for the proposed change of the bungalow to a memorial museum. The civic body also submitted that all necessary procedures were followed for its construction. The court also noted that while the petitioners challenged the composition of the trust, calling it a 'family affair', only three of its 11 members are members of Shiv Sena, two of whom, Thackeray's son, Uddhav, and grandson, Aditya, are actual family members. 'After all, late Balasaheb Thackeray founded Shiv Sena political party and it can hardly be contended that the decision of the State Government in taking on board three members of that party, two out of whom are infact family members of late Balasaheb Thackeray, would amount to arbitrariness,' the court said. It also said that any land chosen in Mumbai would have been valuable and hence the allotment of the land on lease with a nominal rent of Re 1, is also a policy decision it cannot interfere with.
NDTV
01-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
"Heritage Not Disturbed": Court Rejects Pleas Against Thackeray Memorial
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple petitions challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to convert the Mayor's Bungalow at Shivaji Park into a memorial for late Shiv Sena founder Balasaheb Thackeray. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne ruled that no valid grounds were made out to interfere in the state's policy decision, holding that the site selection and legal formalities for the memorial were in compliance with statutory provisions. The court was hearing four Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed between 2017 and 2019, including those by activists Bhagvanji Rayani, Pankaj Rajmachikar, Santosh Daundkar and NGO Jan Mukti Morcha. The petitions raised objections to the conversion of the heritage bungalow into a memorial, citing violations of environmental laws, zoning regulations and alleged procedural lapses under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The High Court, however, held that the land-use change - from green zone to residential - was valid and followed due process under the MRTP Act. The court further upheld the amendment to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act, which allowed the Municipal Commissioner to lease the land to the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Trust at a nominal rate of Rs 1 per annum. "The choice of site for the memorial falls within the realm of state policy and is not open to judicial review unless it violates fundamental rights," the court observed. It also rejected arguments that the Trust, composed in part of Shiv Sena leaders and Thackeray family members, lacked public character, noting that it included senior bureaucrats and municipal officials as trustees. The bench further noted that the memorial project had received clearance from the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee and the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), and that the structure had retained the heritage character of the original bungalow. With the memorial's construction nearly complete, the court said it saw no reason to interfere. "The grandiose structure of Mayor's Bungalow has not only been kept intact but has been restored. Its heritage significance is not disturbed," the judgment read. The state government had first announced plans for the memorial in 2015, and passed a resolution approving it in 2016. The land, valued at approximately Rs 205 crore, was officially earmarked for the memorial in 2019, following a public consultation process. The court concluded, "Considering the overall conspectus of the cases, we do not find that any valid ground of challenge is made out in any of the are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs."
