Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing A.R. Ponnusamy vs Thoppalan @ Karuppa Gounder. ... on 21 March, 2003

Arasa Kumar And Anr. vs Nallammal And Ors. on 19 March, 2004

In A.R. Ponnusamy v. Thoppalan, Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 came up for consideration and Section 46 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the matters covered by the said section. Section 46 of the said Act deals, "Bar of jurisdiction", which states, "No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an appellate authority constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine, and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act".
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Aditya Masala, Nani Agro Foods (P) Ltd. vs M. Selvaraj, The Executive Officer, ... on 22 December, 2006

6. It is in this context, he cited the judgment of this Court [A.R. Ponnusamy v. Thoppalan @ Karuppa Gounder] wherein it is stated that the bar under Section 46 found in the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 will not operate against the Civil Court entertaining a suit as the suit is not challenging any order passed by the authorities. However, it must be seen from the said judgment that the suit was filed against the defendant from carrying on business of stone crushing by using stone crushers. But in that case, it is clearly found that the operator of the Industry was having permission from the Pollution Control Board to use the crusher on the date of the suit and he did not have any order from the Board. Therefore, it was not a case of a person operating an industry with clear permission from the concerned authority. It is under these circumstances, this Court held that such a suit is maintainable. However, in the present case, learned Counsel produced the order dated 23.6.2004 showing that he was existing operator of the plant and he had obtained consent under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. These facts were also set out in the counter filed by the revision petitioner before the trial Court. The trial Court, which failed to note the defence taken by the revision petitioner, brought the industry to an abrupt halt.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - K Chandru - Full Document

Govindasamy vs M.Arumugam on 26 February, 2024

5. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff has filed an appeal in A.S.No.64 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. The Lower Appellate Court took a view that on the date 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.705 of 2021 of filing of the suit, the defendants had not obtained any prior permission for the construction of the stone crushing factory and therefore, the plaintiff had a cause of action for filing the suit in question. With reference to the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the learned Judge relied upon this Court's judgment in the case of A.R.Ponnusamy Vs. Thoppalan @ Karuppa Gounder reported in 2003 (2) LW 631 to state that it is only the matters where the Appellate Authority was constituted under this Act and empowered, that the Civil Court's jurisdiction has been ousted. The defendants in the instant case had not obtained any prior permission from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to use the crusher on the date of the suit and therefore, the Lower Appellate Court would observe that the filing of the suit is very much in order.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document
1