Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Gujarat Chamber Of Commerce And ... vs Pravinbhai Jashbhai Patel on 9 December, 1999 cites

Pravinbhai Jashbhai Patel And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 5 August, 1995

This application is decided in its representative capacity and we make it clear that the question of review on any ground whatsoever, which could have been raised against the decision in Pravinbhai's case, stands concluded so far as this Court is concerned and we expect that the review process will not be strained again by some differently named applicant. In this view of the matter, we reject the application with costs.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 8 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Common Cause, A Registered Society vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 1999

5. The learned Additional Advocate General arguing for the respondents contended that there was no error on the face of record of the said decision in giving the direction which is objected to by the applicants. It was argued that from the judgement it was clear that the Court had the benefit of various reports such as Pandya Committee Report, Neema Committee Report, Chokhvatia Committee Report and Bhanujan Committee Report and also of various affidavits which were placed on record. The Court had also the benefit of seeing the conditions in the consent orders given by the GPCB and the judgement shows that the decision requiring the industries to bear the expenses of such separate drainage line, was a conscious, just and legal decision. It was pointed out that the Court had specifically held that there was no justification for the GIDC and the AMC to shell out its own funds for setting up CETP or to incur the expenses to the tune of Rs. 20 crores as mentioned in Bhanujan's report. It was observed as to why should the public bodies pay for discharging an obligation of the industry and that the industry should mend its own ways at its own cost. These observations in paragraph 129 of the judgement were read somewhat differently by the learned Counsel for the applicants, who emphasised that they were directed to incurring the cost of setting up CETP and that the observations that the GIDC or AMC should continue to discharge their statutory and contractual obligations like laying of drains and pipes which they would be required to do as a part of their normal duty indicated this, and that these observations were not applicable to the drains and pipes which were required to be laid by the Corporation under the statute or under the contractual obligations. The learned Additional Advocate General further argued that an attempt to get the directions that the industry should contribute to setting up of the pipeline for taking trade effluents to Pirana, reviewed was earlier made and it failed in MCA No. 91 of 1996, which was filed by the Textile Processors' Association, which is the applicant No.2 in the present application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 105 - Cited by 756 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 Next