Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Eluru Jute Mills Private Limited vs The State Government Of Ap on 5 March, 2025 cites

Gajubha Jadeja Jesar vs Union Of India on 10 August, 2022

6. Learned counsel while submitting that due to political reasons the present action is initiated against the petitioner, but to purchase peace, though there is no requirement to obtain CTE in terms of the directions / notifications issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, the petitioner paid the requisite fee for CTE and the same is not granted so far. He also submits that as stated in para No.7 of the writ affidavit the originally planned four (04) residential towers were reduced to three (03) and the 600 flats were decreased to 510 units and Building Permit Order dated 19.06.2024 was issued by the 3rd respondent Corporation. Further stating that presently the constructed built up area of the project was 86,000 sq.mtrs as against the permitted built up area of 1,28,499.44 sq.mtrs, he submits that in fact, in none of the notices issued to the petitioner was there any allegation of causing pollution by reason of the project in question or any report in that regard. He 6 submits that the reduction in the flats i.e., construction of the flats will reduce the environmental concerns / issues. Referring to the additional material papers with regard to the question and answers session in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the issue of environmental clearances, pollution etc., and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Gajubha Jadeja Jesar v Union of India and Ors.,1; Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd., and Another v Dastak NGO and Others2 and Electrosteel Steels Ltd., v Union of India and others3, as also the latest photographs depicting the present status of the Towers, learned counsel sought to impress upon the Court that pending consideration of the application the CTE / CTO, the activity of the industry may not be stopped by the authorities of the APPCB as it will have an adverse impact. He accordingly urges for granting the interim relief, else the petitioner as also the purchasers of the flats will be subjected to great hardship.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - H Gupta - Full Document

Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd. vs Dastak Ngo on 25 March, 2022

6. Learned counsel while submitting that due to political reasons the present action is initiated against the petitioner, but to purchase peace, though there is no requirement to obtain CTE in terms of the directions / notifications issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, the petitioner paid the requisite fee for CTE and the same is not granted so far. He also submits that as stated in para No.7 of the writ affidavit the originally planned four (04) residential towers were reduced to three (03) and the 600 flats were decreased to 510 units and Building Permit Order dated 19.06.2024 was issued by the 3rd respondent Corporation. Further stating that presently the constructed built up area of the project was 86,000 sq.mtrs as against the permitted built up area of 1,28,499.44 sq.mtrs, he submits that in fact, in none of the notices issued to the petitioner was there any allegation of causing pollution by reason of the project in question or any report in that regard. He 6 submits that the reduction in the flats i.e., construction of the flats will reduce the environmental concerns / issues. Referring to the additional material papers with regard to the question and answers session in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the issue of environmental clearances, pollution etc., and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Gajubha Jadeja Jesar v Union of India and Ors.,1; Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd., and Another v Dastak NGO and Others2 and Electrosteel Steels Ltd., v Union of India and others3, as also the latest photographs depicting the present status of the Towers, learned counsel sought to impress upon the Court that pending consideration of the application the CTE / CTO, the activity of the industry may not be stopped by the authorities of the APPCB as it will have an adverse impact. He accordingly urges for granting the interim relief, else the petitioner as also the purchasers of the flats will be subjected to great hardship.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 13 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Electrosteel Steels Limited vs Union Of India on 9 December, 2021

6. Learned counsel while submitting that due to political reasons the present action is initiated against the petitioner, but to purchase peace, though there is no requirement to obtain CTE in terms of the directions / notifications issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, the petitioner paid the requisite fee for CTE and the same is not granted so far. He also submits that as stated in para No.7 of the writ affidavit the originally planned four (04) residential towers were reduced to three (03) and the 600 flats were decreased to 510 units and Building Permit Order dated 19.06.2024 was issued by the 3rd respondent Corporation. Further stating that presently the constructed built up area of the project was 86,000 sq.mtrs as against the permitted built up area of 1,28,499.44 sq.mtrs, he submits that in fact, in none of the notices issued to the petitioner was there any allegation of causing pollution by reason of the project in question or any report in that regard. He 6 submits that the reduction in the flats i.e., construction of the flats will reduce the environmental concerns / issues. Referring to the additional material papers with regard to the question and answers session in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the issue of environmental clearances, pollution etc., and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Gajubha Jadeja Jesar v Union of India and Ors.,1; Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd., and Another v Dastak NGO and Others2 and Electrosteel Steels Ltd., v Union of India and others3, as also the latest photographs depicting the present status of the Towers, learned counsel sought to impress upon the Court that pending consideration of the application the CTE / CTO, the activity of the industry may not be stopped by the authorities of the APPCB as it will have an adverse impact. He accordingly urges for granting the interim relief, else the petitioner as also the purchasers of the flats will be subjected to great hardship.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 14 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1