Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (3.28 seconds)

The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Yogendra Mohan Sengupta on 11 January, 2024

73. It could thus be seen that this Court has specifically recorded the submissions made by the counsel that he has no objection if this Court sets aside the general conditions and directions of NGT in para 1 of the order dated 4th May 2016 in the case of Forward Foundation v. State of Karnataka25, except the directions issued against Respondents 9 and 10. It could thus be seen that this Court, in view of the submissions recorded on behalf of the counsel for the applicants, did not find it necessary to consider the contentions urged in the other civil appeals except the appeals filed against Respondents 9 and 10.
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhiretanaji ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary Moef & ... on 23 February, 2023

12. After having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that in view of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee, the present project is nothing but an expansion of the earlier project and should be treated in holistic manner. We are of the view that the date which has been mentioned by the Applicant i.e. 17.12.2019 for expansion when the Consent to Establish of the said project was allowed, can be said to be a valid date for calculating of the period of limitation and since this Application has been filed under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which provides 5 years period + 60 days at the discretion of the Tribunal on being shown satisfactory ground for the delay, we find that taking into consideration the recurring cause of action, the principle of which has been laid down by this Tribunal in Forward Foundation v. State of Karnataka case (supra), this application is not found to be time barred. This issue is decided accordingly.
National Green Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next