Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (1.54 seconds)
Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2026 cites

Rajeev Suri vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 July, 2018

"A. Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority [2021 SCC OnLine SC 7] "494. The minutes of the two meetings of EAC are selfexplanatory and reveal due application of mind, in light of the principles relating to application of mind enunciated above. We do not wish to repeat the same to avoid prolixity. EAC is an expert body and it is amply clear that it has been made aware of all relevant information relating to the project and it has applied its mind to the proposal. Even on settled principles of judicial review, it is clear that relevant material has been considered by the committee and no reliance has been pointed out on any irrelevant material. The specific recommendations given by the committee do indicate that the committee was aware of the need for precautionary measures in environmental matters and accordingly, it suggested requirement of further permissions on certain counts.
National Green Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - A K Goel - Full Document

Kanhai Ram vs The Union Of India And Ors on 15 February, 2019

However, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), vide Judgment dated 15.01.2024 in Appeal No.26 of 2022 (Kanhai Ram Patel & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), quashed the EC and directed the answering respondent to "re-examine the matter from the stage of conducting public consultation afresh. If additional appropriate study material is submitted by the project proponent, the same may be appraised, and a fresh decision on the prior EC may be taken by the MoEF&CC in accordance with the law and the existing state of environment and ecology. That in compliance with the NGT's Judgment dated 15.01.2024, the answering respondent, vide letter dated 19.02.2024, directed the project proponent and the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) to comply with the said Judgment. This demonstrates the clear intention of the answering respondent to adhere to the directives of the Hon'ble NGT. The Appellants' allegations that the Respondent disregarded the Tribunal's directions are baseless and frivolous and that pursuant to the NGT's directives, the Project Proponent (MAHAGENCO), vide letter dated 24.02.2024, requested the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) - Coal Mining to consider their proposal in the upcoming EAC meeting. The letter highlighted the following key points:-
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document

Basawaraj S/O Kashappa vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 10 June, 2011

" 15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 213 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next