Tag Archives: 上海夜生活CHG

B’ house / 100 A associates

first_imgPhotographs:  Yadah Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project Architects: 100 A associates Area Area of this architecture project CopyHouses•Namyangju-si, South Korea CopyAbout this office100 A associatesOfficeFollowProductConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesYanggu-gunNamyangju-siSouth KoreaPublished on January 25, 2017Cite: “B’ house / 100 A associates” 24 Jan 2017. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021. ISSN 0719-8884Read commentsBrowse the CatalogPanels / Prefabricated AssembliesTechnowoodGRP Siding Façade SystemPlasticsMitrexSolar SidingMetal PanelsAurubisCopper Alloy: Nordic RoyalSystems / Prefabricated PanelsKalwall®Translucent WalkwaysPanels / Prefabricated AssembliesIsland Exterior FabricatorsSpecialty Facade SystemsLightsLouis PoulsenLamps – LP Slim BoxWoodBruagAcoustic Panels with LEDTiles / Mosaic / GresiteHisbalitMosaic Tiles – Palm SpringsMineral / Organic PaintsKEIMBlack Concrete – Concretal®-BlackSuspension SystemsMetawellAluminum Panels for Smart CeilingsDoorsGorter HatchesFloor Door – Fire RatedBricksDEPPEWaterstruck Bricks – 1622/1635ekws DFMore 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 Photographs Year:  ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/803738/b-house-100-a-associates Clipboard “COPY” “COPY” Save this picture!© Yadah+ 45 Share Manufacturers: Louis Poulsen, Ceadesign, Rexa, VistaSave this picture!© YadahRecommended ProductsEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesRodecaRound Facade at Omnisport Arena ApeldoornPorcelain StonewareGrespaniaPorcelain Tiles- CoverlamPorcelain StonewareCeramiche KeopeCeramic Tiles – BackPorcelain StonewareApavisaFloor Tiles – RegenerationText description provided by the architects. There is a small village in Namyangju-si. It is not a large village with large residential houses, but similar to small countryside villages of our childhood memories on holidays. The village isn’t occupied by young folk, but with elders. It’s not only the elders that make the time pass slowly, but the construction of the buildings may have to do with it. Tired of life’s troubles and health, homeowners flock to this village and hope to live with their parents here.Save this picture!© YadahAs we gear towards a residential space project, we aim to give residential space its justice and believe that we must provide different viewpoints than as designers and constructors alone. Because residential spaces are made for and planned by residential owners, it’s imperative that we consider their lifestyles, preferences, and backgrounds. In the end, it’s the residential owners that will spend the future in these homes, so at 100A we will give up our unnecessary egotism of designers to fulfill the needs of the home owners.Save this picture!© YadahTo achieve this, we try to set up meets with the homeowners at their pesonal locations such as their office or current homes. We are adamant about this in order to have a truthful conversation in a common space the homeowners will be comfortable in. We are also able to observe lighting, furniture, bikes, painting, and other artifacts of their lives to find out more of their lives.Save this picture!© YadahAt the inception of this particular project, we visited the homes of both the resident owner as well as their parents. They were both different in style, but similar in the way they live their day to day lives. Due to the style differences, the owners’ house was very simple while the parents’ home was very ostentatious, but both were well organized and clean. It was so clean in fact that it was hard to believe that people actually lived there. “The living space is so immaculate, is this a model home?” we asked the homeowner, but she said it was influenced by her mother. Growing up, she was used to seeing how well kept her mother was that if things are not organized, I don’t feel comfortable. Come to think of it, the parent’s place had only what they essentially needed.Save this picture!Site PlanThe 3 main points we focused on this project are: how to maintain the lifestyle of preferences of these two homes, how to mold these two homes naturally, and how to maintain privacy in both homes. The main area of concern was how the interior design will not only keep the styles and preferences intact, but maintain a state of distance and communion. To do this, we kept the lawns in the middle with both the common spaces facing each other. Meanwhile the bedrooms and bathrooms were kept on the further sides of each other. Also, the height distribution between the owners’ rooms and parents’ rooms are about 1 story apart. Last, the front gate and entrances are connected by a bridge for fairly easy access.Save this picture!© YadahHouse no.1 _ minimal & edge‘I’d like our house to be like an art gallery’The residential owners live in all white living space. The living space is also minimalist, so there mustn’t be any clutter. With high ceilings (3.5m), long windows seen across a narrow kitchen, wall lighting in bedrooms, the space felt voluminous and open. The sight of their parents’ structure seen across the lawn out looking the front window, it was as if their parents’ house was another work of art seen from their house. A trapdoor for some privacy was places as well. Adjacent the inner part of the living room was a small room for a bed and closet, and an office for the mother in which gives entry to the bathroom and bedroom. Downstairs is another office in which the husband can use to study and be a big part of his everyday lifestyle.Save this picture!© YadahHouse no.2 _ minimal & classic‘I want to bring in my parents’ furniture. The furniture must match the interior’There was a lot of thought put into the parents’ common space. At the second meeting with the residential owners’ parents, the first thing that caught our eyes were the elegant and grandiose furniture they owned. The fitting of this furniture in an apartment didn’t quite go hand in hand. It felt as if the furniture is trapped in a small area. The task at hand was to let the beautiful furniture breathe and flow freely in an open space. By adding bold colors, and some finishing touches, the furniture was able to be used to its potential.Save this picture!© YadahSave this picture!© YadahFirst floor’s common space was given high ceilings (6m), and dark color finishes were used for the furniture background so that the beautiful designs can be highlighted and notices. The shapes and sizes of the ceiling and living room windows coupled with the location of the long window of the front lawn are within context. The high and tall windows are meant for the two homes to look upon each other with ease. The windows in the kitchen and island kitchen allow for the mother to see the 4 seasons change as if it’s an art painting. A crystal chandelier overlooks the dining table in the first floor to add a classical touch and transition to the second floor. The second floor has an office for the father to overlook the lawn as well as guestrooms.Save this picture!© YadahProject gallerySee allShow lessRecreational Community Center Châtelaine – Balexert / STENDARDO MENNINGEN ARCHITECTESSelected ProjectsArrow Factory Hutong Media & Culture Creative Space / META StudioSelected Projects Sharecenter_img B’ house / 100 A associatesSave this projectSaveB’ house / 100 A associates Area:  311 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/803738/b-house-100-a-associates Clipboard Houses ArchDaily 2016 B’ house / 100 A associates South Korea Projectslast_img read more

[Automatic Vacation Of Interim Orders] Is Article 226(3) Directory or Mandatory? Gauhati HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench [Read Judgment]

first_imgNews Updates[Automatic Vacation Of Interim Orders] Is Article 226(3) Directory or Mandatory? Gauhati HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini28 Jun 2020 2:13 AMShare This – x”This provision hits at the very heart of the inherent and discretionary power of the Court to grant appropriate relief in exercise of judicial review, if this provision is to be considered to be mandatory in nature.”A division bench of the Gauhati High Court has opined that the Clause (3) of Article 226(3) which deals with automatic vacation of interim orders, is directory. As an earlier division bench judgment had held that the provision is mandatory, the division bench comprising of Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and S. Hukato Swo referred the issue to a larger bench.Background In this case,…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?LoginA division bench of the Gauhati High Court has opined that the Clause (3) of Article 226(3) which deals with automatic vacation of interim orders, is directory. As an earlier division bench judgment had held that the provision is mandatory, the division bench comprising of Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and S. Hukato Swo referred the issue to a larger bench.Background In this case, an interim order was passed by a single bench in a writ petition. The respondents filed a petition seeking vacation of interim order. Before the Single Bench, it was contended that, the application for vacating of stay orders was served on the Counsel for the writ petitioners on 21.01.2020 and as such, 2 weeks would have expired on 04.02.2020, and since the application was not disposed of within 04.02.2020, that is, within 2 weeks of furnishing of the application for vacating the stay orders, by virtue of the provision under Article 226(3), the said interim orders passed by the Court would stand automatically vacated. This plea was dismissed by the Single Bench. Assailing this order of the single bench, and also seeking to vacate the interim orders, the respondents approached the Division Bench filing an intra court appeal. One of the legal issues that arose for the consideration of the Division Bench was whether the Clause (3) of Article 226 is directory or mandatory. Article 226(3)Article 226(3) provides that when a party makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of an interim order (which was passed ex parte) and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.Many HCs Have Held That Article 226(3) Is Mandatory At the outset, the bench noted that there is an early decision of the Gauhati High Court itself in South East Bus Association and Ors. Vs. The State of Assam, that the provision is mandatory. The Bench also observed that the High Courts of Rajasthan, Calcutta, Kerala, Gujarat, Allahabad have taken the similar view that if the Court does not dispose of the application for vacating the interim order within 2 weeks of the furnishing a copy of the application for vacation to the party in whose favour the earlier interim order was passed, the said interim order will stand vacated automatically. It also referred to a Madras High Court judgment in T. Gnanasambanthan (Dr.) v. Board of Governors, in which a contrary view was taken. It was observed therein that, if the application could not be disposed of by the court within 2 weeks because of reasons attributable to the Court, no party should be made to suffer and hence there would not be an automatic vacation of the interim order. The bench said that it is inclined to subscribe to this view taken by the Madras High Court. The bench said: “If this wide discretionary power of the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found, is curtailed by imposing an inflexible procedural provision under Article 226(3) that the High Court has to dispose of an application within 2 weeks, otherwise the interim order passed by it will automatically get vacated, it flies in the face of the wide discretionary power of the High Court to grant appropriate relief to reach injustice wherever it is found. It amounts to putting a procedural restriction on a wide discretionary power and thus negates the very essence of discretionary power given to the High Court…….The power to grant interim relief is inherent in the High Court which has the jurisdiction and authority to finally determine the lis and rights of the parties and grant appropriate final order. This discretion to pass appropriate interim order for such period as the Court may deem fit is an inalienable part of the inherent power of the Court which in our opinion could not be curtailed by a processual provision. This provision, thus, hits at the very heart of the inherent and discretionary power of the Court to grant appropriate relief in exercise of judicial review, if this provision is to be considered to be mandatory in nature. However, if it is read to be directory in nature, this limitation on the power of the Court can be reconciled and harmonised.” Observing thus, the bench concluded that even though there are facets of law which support the view that Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mandatory in nature, there are more overwhelming attributes to show that this provision is directory in nature. Since there is a contrary earlier view taken by the High Court, the bench directed the Registrar to place this matter before the Chief Justice. However, in facts of the case, the bench dismissed the appeal holding that the single judge was right in holding that a copy of the application was served upon the respondents on 31.01.2020 and not 21.01.2020, and thus there would not be vacation of interim order by default, in any case. Case no.: WRIT APPEAL 3(K) OF 2020Case name: Rukuvoto Ringa vs. MeyalemlaCoram: Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and S. Hukato Swo Counsel: Sr. Adv R. Iralu, Adv Z. Zhimomi and State Counsel N. MozhuiClick here to Read/Download JudgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw and help us provide quality journalism. Click here to subscribeRead JudgmentNext Storylast_img read more