House 1532 / Fougeron Architecture

first_imgShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOr Clipboard United States 2006 Products used in this ProjectLightsLouis PoulsenLamps – AJ CollectionCity:San FranciscoCountry:United StatesMore SpecsLess Specs Year:  House 1532 / Fougeron Architecture House 1532 / Fougeron ArchitectureSave this projectSaveHouse 1532 / Fougeron ArchitectureSave this picture!© Richard Barnes+ 29 Share CopyHouses•San Francisco, United States “COPY” Architects: Fougeron Architecture Year Completion year of this architecture project CopyAbout this officeFougeron ArchitectureOfficeFollowProductsWoodConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesWoodSan FranciscoHousesUnited StatesPublished on October 22, 2013Cite: “House 1532 / Fougeron Architecture” 22 Oct 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021. ISSN 0719-8884Read commentsBrowse the CatalogPartitionsSkyfoldChoosing the Skyfold Wall for Your SpaceGlass3MGlass Finish – FASARA™ GeometricShower ColumnshansgroheShoulder ShowersPanels / Prefabricated AssembliesMorin Corp.Metal Wall Systems – ExposedStonesCosentinoSurfaces – Dekton® Stonika SeriesConcrete FloorsSikaIndustrial Floor CoatingsHanging LampsLouis PoulsenPendant Lights – KeglenDoorsSky-FrameInsulated Sliding Doors – Sky-Frame SlopeThermalSchöckMinimizing Thermal Bridges in BalconiesWindowspanoramah!®ah! Ultra MinimalistEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesAlucoilStructural Honeycomb Panels – LarcoreWork ChairsDynamobelWork Chair – SLAT 16More products »Read commentsSave世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否翻译成中文现有为你所在地区特制的网站?想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?Take me there »✖You’ve started following your first account!Did you know?You’ll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream Projects “COPY” Photographs Manufacturers: Louis Poulsen Structural Engineer: Endrestudio Products translation missing: Photographs:  Richard Barnes Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOr Clipboard ArchDaily Save this picture!© Richard BarnesText description provided by the architects. This new house, infilled on an existing 25-foot wide lot in San Francisco, includes two distinct volumes separated by an interior courtyard. The front structure has a garage at street grade and a painting studio above; the back volume is the main house, with the bedrooms on the lower level, living spaces in the middle, and a master bedroom on the top floor. The design of this project uses two sectional moves: horizontal and vertical. The horizontal move creates two courtyards — in the middle and at the back of the house — while the vertical move digs the lower bedrooms down to the garage and street level. The combination of these two moves serves to interlock the house to the site and the surrounding urban fabric, thus interweaving the inside and outside spaces with a play of light and dark. Save this picture!© Richard BarnesThe main floor of the house – an open floor plan with kitchen, dining and living spaces — is punctuated by a two-story space for the stair, and is on grade with the rear yard. A setback of the building on the third floor opens the house to spectacular views of the bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. The house has seven outdoor spaces, all with distinctive qualities and views: the front deck at the studio, the deck on top of the studio, the lower level courtyard, the entry level deck off the courtyard, the back courtyard, the glass and wood walkway, and the backyard. These decks and spaces unfurl around the living areas of the house, thereby unlocking the visual complexity of the structure and its site. Save this picture!© Richard BarnesThis house boldly introduces a new building typology to San Francisco a home of courtyards and light that brings new life to the world of the city’s residential architecture. Save this picture!Side ElevationSave this picture!Side ElevationProject gallerySee allShow lessGiveaway: Win A Copy of ‘Richard Meier & Partners Complete Works’Architecture News100 Urban Trends: A Glossary of IdeasArchitecture News Share Houseslast_img read more

“State Needs To Fix Responsibility”; Bombay HC Directs State To Pay Rs.50 K Each As Compensation To 2 Men Detained Illegally

first_imgNews Updates”State Needs To Fix Responsibility”; Bombay HC Directs State To Pay Rs.50 K Each As Compensation To 2 Men Detained Illegally Nitish Kashyap26 Dec 2020 11:16 PMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court has directed the State government to pay Rs.50,000 each towards compensation to two men who were illegally detained in Beed District of Aurangabad Division for six days in 2013 and observed that in such cases the State needs to obtain explanation from the erring authority and fix some kind of responsibility.Division bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice MG Sewlikar of…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court has directed the State government to pay Rs.50,000 each towards compensation to two men who were illegally detained in Beed District of Aurangabad Division for six days in 2013 and observed that in such cases the State needs to obtain explanation from the erring authority and fix some kind of responsibility.Division bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice MG Sewlikar of the Aurangabad bench were hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Arun Tagad and Shailendra Tagad seeking compensation of Rs. 5 lakh each for the said illegal detention.Case BackgroundOn January 28, 2013, FIR was registered at Beed Rural Police Station against the petitioners at the instance of a 35-year-old lady for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. On January 30, both the petitioners were arrested by police of Rural Police Station, Beed and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed on the same day. The Judicial Magistrate First Class granted bail to both the petitioners and they were released when they furnished personal bond and surety bond. According to the petitioners that when they came out of the campus of Court, the same police arrested them immediately and they were taken before the Executive Magistrate, Beed. On the same day both the petitioners were produced before the Executive Magistrate, Beed and the Executive Magistrate made an order against the petitioners and directed them to give interim bond with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000 each. Petitioners moved an application before the Executive Magistrate and requested to permit them to give cash security in place of surety bond and they submitted that they had applied for getting a solvency certificate, but such certificate generally is not issued immediately. The Executive Magistrate did not allow this application and adjourned the matter to the next date. As a result, petitioners were kept in custody for 6 days from January 30, 2013.SubmissionsAccording to the petitioner’s lawyer Advocate NR Thorat contended that there are mala fides in the action taken by police and the Executive Magistrate also did not pass necessary orders and due to that they were illegally detained in jail from January 30, 2013 for six days. Petitioners are not habitual offenders, in fact Shailendra Tagad was serving the military at the relevant time and Arun Tagad was a respected person and resident of the same locality as the complainant and so detention was not necessarily in the chapter case. The arrest and detention were illegal and there is violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, Adv Thorat submitted.In the reply filed by respondent police head constable, who was investigating the aforesaid crime, it is contended that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Beed Division had directed this police station to take preventive measures against the petitioners. The said direction was given on wireless.According to police head constable Bansi Jaibhaye, when the petitioners were released on bail by Judicial Magistrate First Class, he asked the petitioners to appear before the Executive Magistrate on the same day and he did not arrest them. On that day, a report was submitted to the Executive Magistrate who directed the petitioners to give a bond of Rs.25,000 with two solvent sureties. However, the petitioners failed to comply with this order and the matter was adjourned to February 5, 2013 by the Executive Magistrate, the said constable contended.JudgmentAfter hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the records show that the police station requested the Executive Magistrate to start chapter proceeding under Section 107 of CrPC and obtain interim bond from them under Section 116(3) of CrPC. The bench said-“The provision of Section 107(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that there are conditions for starting the proceeding under this section….In the present matter, the record shows that there was only a police report of aforesaid police head constable before the Executive Magistrate and that was in respect of registration of aforesaid crime. The report does not show that any document including a copy of aforesaid FIR was supplied to the Executive Magistrate. On this report itself, the Executive Magistrate made the order and directed the Petitioners to execute interim bonds under Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of aforesaid nature. The record produced and the reply of the police head constable does not show that before passing such order, any order of show cause as required under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made.”Moreover, the bench observed that the police head constable’s submission that he had only directed the petitioners to appear before the Executive Magistrate when they were released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class appears to be incorrect and false. Court said-“The aforesaid order of interim bond made by the Executive Magistrate shows that the petitioners were brought before the Executive Magistrate by police head constable Jaibhaye. This circumstance supports the contention of the petitioners that immediately after their release on bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, they were taken in custody by police and they were produced before the Executive Magistrate. Though there is such clear probability, there is no record to show their formal arrest under any provision of law after they were released by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in aforesaid crime.”Finally, the bench noted that the said order of the Executive Magistrate was illegal-“The order of the Executive Magistrate asking the present Petitioners to execute interim bonds of aforesaid nature is illegal. The bond was involving onerous condition, two sureties having solvency certificates of Rs.25,000 each for each opponent. These circumstances show that there were mala fides and the intention of the police was to see that the Petitioners are arrested and they are kept behind bars for a few days. The record and circumstances show that the Executive Magistrate acted as per such desire of police and he did not apply his mind. The Executive Magistrate ought to have gone through the aforesaid provisions which show that he had no such jurisdiction.”Directing the State to pay Rs.50,000 each to the petitioners, the Court observed that said compensation has to be paid within 45 days, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Court also said that it was open for the STate to recover the same from the erring officers and the Executive Magistrate.Click Here To Download Judgment[Read Judgment]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more