Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors vs Kamath Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd on 9 January, 1996
In similar situation in Union of India vs.
Kamath Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. referred to supra, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is open to the forest
authorities to seek approval of the Central Government
RSA.No.89/2015
22
as required under Section 2 of the Act and abide by the
order of the Central Government. Para 7 of the said
judgment reads as follows:
M/S. Gateway Hotels And Gateway Resorts ... vs Nagarahole Budakattu Hakku Sthapana ... on 11 April, 1997
In M/s.Gateway Hotels and Gateway
Resorts Limited, Bangalore versus Nagarahole
Budakattu Hakku Sthapana Samithi, Virajpet, Coorg
[1997 SCC Online Kar 219], similar contention was
taken. Work taken up was only to renovate, refurnish
and to run the hotel without conferment of any right in
the property and to put up structures apart from
RSA.No.89/2015
19
existing staff quarters with intention to start boarding
and lodging facilities to the Wildlife lovers. In that case
also referring to Section 2 of the Act in para 29 of the
judgment, it was specifically held as follows:
Jairaj A.P. vs The Chief Conservator Of Forests ... on 7 February, 1996
30. This question fell for consideration before
the Kerala High Court in Jairaj A.P. versus The Chief
Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Thiruvananthapuram
and others [AIR 1996 Ker 362]. The very same
arguments of eco-tourism being part of management of
RSA.No.89/2015
20
wildlife forest was raised in the said case and the
Division Bench of Kerala High Court in that regard held
as follows:
Gurnam Singh (D) By Lrs.. vs Lehna Singh(D) By Lrs. on 13 March, 2019
32. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments
and nature of work mentioned in defendant's own
RSA.No.89/2015
21
documents, Courts below were not right in holding that
works taken up by the respondents were for promoting
ecotourism and that they are ancillary to the
management and development of forest wildlife,
therefore, Section 2 of the Act is not applicable. The
impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below
fit into the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in
Gurnam Singh's case for their reversal by this Court.
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
As observed and held by this
Court in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam (Supra), in a
second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High
Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that
of the First Appellate Court, unless it finds that
the conclusions drawn by the lower Court were
erroneous being: