Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.47 seconds)
Meenava Thathai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar ... vs The Secretary To Government Union Of ... on 30 September, 2020 cites

Dr. K. Mohan vs Chennai Port Trust on 1 December, 2009

62. Further, in the decision reported in Dr. T.K. Mohan Vs. Chennai Port Trust and Ors. 2009 SCC Online Madras 907, the Hon‟ble Madras High Court while considering the question as to whether the storage facility in the property belonging to the port trust requires any further permission under the regulations framed under Development Regulations [35] of 2nd Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2006 from the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 held that it is not necessary.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

S. Jagannath vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 1996

25. He had further submitted that none of the decisions relied on by the counsel for the appellant are applicable to the facts of the case as those are cases where there was no permission obtained and constructions were completed and occupied without getting the clearance which the Hon‟ble Apex Court had held as illegal and directed demolition of the same. The dictum laid down in the decision reported in S.Jagannathan Vs. Union of India 1997 (2) SCC 87 is not applicable to the facts of this case as it relates to the activity which is not permissible in the Coastal Regulation Zone as it will have greater impact on marine ecology and it will affect the livelihood of the traditional fishermen community as such.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 102 - K Singh - Full Document

M/S Electrothem (India) Ltd vs Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai & Ors on 2 August, 2016

36. Further, in the decision reported in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited Vs. Union of India 2011 (7) SCC 338, Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2005 (11) SCC 559 and M/s. Electrotherm (India) Limited Vs. V. Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai & Ors. 2016 (9) SCC 300, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that there is no concept of giving ex- post facto clearance either under the EIA Notification, 2006 or under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the past act of violation cannot be ratified by providing an ex-post facto [19] clearance and it will not have any retrospective operation but it will have only a prospective operation from the date on which it was issued and till then the act committed by the Project Proponent will be deemed to be an unauthorized or illegal act which will result in payment of environmental compensation applying the ―Polluter Pays‖ principle.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Workmen Of Dahingeapar Tea Estate vs Dahingeapar Tea Estate on 21 May, 1958

51. The above principles are reiterated in the following decisions, Workmen of Jimithi Tea Estate Vs. Management of Jimithi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353, R.L.Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1230, Thampanoor Ravi Vs. Charupara Ravi & Ors. 1999 (8) SCC 74, Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Other connected case 1987 (3) SCC 279, Thakker Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2012 (12) SCC 189, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mohammed Mohammed Khan 1981 (4) SCC 82, Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others 2010 (10) [30] SCC 744, Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Company Limited and Ors. 2001 (4) SCC 139, Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. 2004 (1) SCC 702, Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. 2014 (1) SCC 188, Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2002 (3) SCC 533, Bharath Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services INC and connected cases 2012 (9) SCC 552.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999

51. The above principles are reiterated in the following decisions, Workmen of Jimithi Tea Estate Vs. Management of Jimithi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353, R.L.Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1230, Thampanoor Ravi Vs. Charupara Ravi & Ors. 1999 (8) SCC 74, Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Other connected case 1987 (3) SCC 279, Thakker Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2012 (12) SCC 189, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mohammed Mohammed Khan 1981 (4) SCC 82, Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others 2010 (10) [30] SCC 744, Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Company Limited and Ors. 2001 (4) SCC 139, Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. 2004 (1) SCC 702, Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. 2014 (1) SCC 188, Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2002 (3) SCC 533, Bharath Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services INC and connected cases 2012 (9) SCC 552.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Utkal Contractors & Joinery Private ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 7 May, 1987

51. The above principles are reiterated in the following decisions, Workmen of Jimithi Tea Estate Vs. Management of Jimithi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353, R.L.Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1230, Thampanoor Ravi Vs. Charupara Ravi & Ors. 1999 (8) SCC 74, Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Other connected case 1987 (3) SCC 279, Thakker Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2012 (12) SCC 189, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mohammed Mohammed Khan 1981 (4) SCC 82, Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others 2010 (10) [30] SCC 744, Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Company Limited and Ors. 2001 (4) SCC 139, Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. 2004 (1) SCC 702, Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. 2014 (1) SCC 188, Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2002 (3) SCC 533, Bharath Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services INC and connected cases 2012 (9) SCC 552.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 108 - O C Reddy - Full Document

M/S Thakker Shipping P.Ltd vs Commr.Of Customs(General) on 30 October, 2012

51. The above principles are reiterated in the following decisions, Workmen of Jimithi Tea Estate Vs. Management of Jimithi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353, R.L.Arora Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1230, Thampanoor Ravi Vs. Charupara Ravi & Ors. 1999 (8) SCC 74, Utkal Contractors and Joinery Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Other connected case 1987 (3) SCC 279, Thakker Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2012 (12) SCC 189, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mohammed Mohammed Khan 1981 (4) SCC 82, Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others 2010 (10) [30] SCC 744, Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Company Limited and Ors. 2001 (4) SCC 139, Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. 2004 (1) SCC 702, Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. 2014 (1) SCC 188, Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2002 (3) SCC 533, Bharath Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services INC and connected cases 2012 (9) SCC 552.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next