Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs Anil V. Tharthare on 3 December, 2019

V.Ramasubbu vs Union Of India Rep By The Secretary To ... on 1 August, 2022

Further, in Key Stone Realtors Private Limited Vs. Anil V. Tharthare & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 66, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has approved the compensation of Rupees One Crore imposed by the Tribunal on the building project. Considering the fact that the project is envisioned to benefit the senior citizens who would have invested their hard earned retirement benefits for getting comfortable accommodation in the project launched by the 9th Respondent, further also considering that the project proponent had also constructed certain bridges at his cost and also provided certain amenities for the enjoyment of the senior citizens and to meet their necessities, and since the overall built up are as on date is less than 10,000 Sq.Mtrs., instead of applying the formula evolved by the Central Pollution Control Board, we feel that fixing the amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore only) as environmental compensation will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So, the Project Proponent/9th Respondent is directed pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore only) to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board within a period of 3 (Three) months.
National Green Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Atana Flat Owners And Residents ... vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 14 July, 2022

54. It is well settled law that avoidance of legal provisions by lawful method though permissible to some extent, but if it is evasion of law detrimental to environment cannot be permitted. If splitting of projects is being adopted by the Project Proponent to avoid obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC), then it amounts to evasion. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Keystone Realtors Private Limited Vs. Anil V. Tharthare & Ors.reported in (2020) 2 SCC 66 has clearly held that the provisions of law should be interpreted in a manner which is in consonance with the object and the purpose of the legislation or delegated legislation as a whole. The Tribunal applying the principles of "Precautionary Principle"
National Green Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vineet Sinha vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 28 September, 2022

17. Having regard to the fact situation that the 19th Floors in five Towers have been sold and occupied and the demolition will affect third party rights, we consider it appropriate to levy compensation with deterrent element. Following the principles of law laid down inter-alia in Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI2, Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil v. Tharthare and Ors.3, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India4 and M. C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India5, we quantify the same at Rs. 15 crores being 10% of the project cost as per estimate in the EC, though actual value may be more. The amount is certainly far less than the value of the said 5 floors.
National Green Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

R Kalyanaraman vs Union Of India Rep By The Secretary To ... on 8 February, 2025

22. Relying on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Keystone Realtors Private Limited's case (supra), wherein the practice of splitting the project within the threshold limit and after that, increasing the extent of the project was deprecated, it was held by this Tribunal in (i) Original Application No.149 of 2016 (SZ) [V. Ramasubbu Vs. Union of India & Ors.] vide Judgment dated 01.08.2022, (ii)Original Application No.106 of 2020 (SZ) [Atana Flat Owners and Residents Association Vs. District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB & Ors.] vide Judgment dated 14.07.2022 and (iii) Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ) [Shaji A.K. Vs. MoEF&CC & Ors.] vide Judgment dated 11.09.2023 held that splitting of projects will not exempt the Project Proponent from seeking prior Environmental Clearance.
National Green Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gutha Gunasekhar vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2023

58. Reverting to the contention that there is no illegality in splitting a project into phases it is pertinent to fall back on decision reported in Keystone Realtors Private Limited Vs. Anil V. Tharthare and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 66, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed in respect of the EIA Notification, 2006 that "In a case where the text of the provisions requires interpretation, this Court must adopt an interpretation which is in consonance with the object and purpose of the legislation or delegated legislation as a whole. The EIA Notification was adopted with the intention of restricting new projects and the expansion of new projects until their environmental impact could be evaluated and understood. It could not be disputed that as the size of the project increases, so does the magnitude of the project‟s environmental impact. This Court could not adopt an interpretation of the EIA Notification which would permit, incrementally or otherwise, project proponents to increase the construction area of a project without any oversight from the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC, as applicable. It was true that there may exist certain situations where the expansion sought by a project proponent is truly marginal or the environmental impact of such expansion was non-existent. However, it was not for this Court to lay down a bright-line test as to what constitutes a „marginal‟ increase and what constitutes a material increase warranting a fresh Form 1 and scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee. If the government in its wisdom were to prescribe that a one-time „marginal‟ increase in project size, within the threshold limit stipulated in the Schedule, could be subject to a lower standard of scrutiny without diluting the urgent need for environmental protection, conceivably this Court may give effect to such a provision. This would be subject to any challenge on the ground of their being a violation of the precautionary principle. However, as the EIA Notification currently stands, an expansion within the 24 limits prescribed by the Schedules would be subject to the procedure set out in the notification.
National Green Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Satyagopal - Full Document

Thomas Lawrence vs State Environment Impact Assessment ... on 30 May, 2023

I. The impugned Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by the SEIAA - Kerala is set aside, as grant of EC by the MoEF&CC for Main Phase - 3 Project (1,33,491 Sq.M. built up area) and grant of EC by the SEIAA - Kerala for Expansion of Phase - 3 Project (1,37,673.4 Sq.M. built up area) amounts to splitting of project and such splitting is violative of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keystone Realtors Private Limited Vs. Anil V. Tharthare and Ors.
National Green Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K Satyagopal - Full Document

Gutha Gunasekhar vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2023

58. Reverting to the contention that there is no illegality in splitting a project into phases it is pertinent to fall back on decision reported in Keystone Realtors Private Limited Vs. Anil V. Tharthare and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 66, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed in respect of the EIA Notification, 2006 that "In a case where the text of the provisions requires interpretation, this Court must adopt an interpretation which is in consonance with the object and purpose of the legislation or delegated legislation as a whole. The EIA Notification was adopted with the intention of restricting new projects and the expansion of new projects until their environmental impact could be evaluated and understood. It could not be disputed that as the size of the project increases, so does the magnitude of the project‟s environmental impact. This Court could not adopt an interpretation of the EIA Notification which would permit, incrementally or otherwise, project proponents to increase the construction area of a project without any oversight from the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC, as applicable. It was true that there may exist certain situations where the expansion sought by a project proponent is truly marginal or the environmental impact of such expansion was non-existent. However, it was not for this Court to lay down a bright-line test as to what constitutes a „marginal‟ increase and what constitutes a material increase warranting a fresh Form 1 and scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee. If the government in its wisdom were to prescribe that a one-time „marginal‟ increase in project size, within the threshold limit stipulated in the Schedule, could be subject to a lower standard of scrutiny without diluting the urgent need for environmental protection, conceivably this Court may give effect to such a provision. This would be subject to any challenge on the ground of their being a violation of the precautionary principle. However, as the EIA Notification currently stands, an expansion within the 24 limits prescribed by the Schedules would be subject to the procedure set out in the notification.
National Green Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Satyagopal - Full Document

Navroz Kersasp Mody S/O Kersasp Mody ... vs The Auroville Foundation Rep By Its ... on 28 April, 2022

In the decision reported in Key Stone Realtors Private Limited Vs. Anil V. Tharthare & Ors.20, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that if the project proponent wanted to make any change in the earlier Environmental Clearance (EC) granted, even if he want to reduce the extent of construction than the earlier permission of construction, he cannot do the same, without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance 19 (2019) 15 SCC 401 20 (2020) 2 SCC 66 Page 49 of 78 (EC), as it will amount to modification or expansion of the existing project and in that case, it was further observed that in such case, they will have to file a fresh and mere amendment without following the procedure under the EIA Notification, 2006 will not be sufficient.
National Green Tribunal Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next