Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.28 seconds)The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Section 20 in The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976
Section 14 in The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 [Entire Act]
Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. vs The Forward Foundation on 12 May, 2020
5. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that the enforcement of the
rules and acts and protection of the eco-sensitive zone and wildlife
sanctuary and the enforcement of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986
is within the domain of the National Green Tribunal and Hon‟ble the
Supreme Court of India as repeatedly directed the position in Mantri
Techzone vs. Forward Foundation 2019, SCC Online, SC 322 as follows :
Kishore Lal vs Chairman, Employees State Insurance ... on 8 May, 2007
An interpretation which furthers the interests of
environment must be given a broader reading. (See Kishsore
Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. (2007)
4 SCC 579, para 17). The existence of the Tribunal without
its broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c) read
with Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and
8
toothless, and shall betray the legislative intent in setting
up a specialized Tribunal specifically to address
environmental concerns. The Tribunal, specially constituted
with Judicial Members as well as with Experts in the field
of environment, has a legal obligation to provide for
preventive and restorative measures in the interest of the
environment.
Supertech Ltd vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare ... on 31 August, 2021
11. In all the applications the prayers are the same first to implead the
applicant of the miscellaneous application as a party and to modify the
order dated 31.07.2023. such a prayer for modification of order dated
31.07.2023 is untenable through the means of filing of MA No. 13 of 2023,
due to the fact that the present Miscellaneous Applicant is in substance
seeking a review of the impugned order dated 31.07.2023, which is not
statutorily permissible through Miscellaneous Applications, as the
procedure for filing of Review Applications has been specified in the NGT
Act, 2010, and the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules,
2011 („NGT Rules, 2011‟) and this position has been upheld by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India prohibiting the filing of review application in the
guise of miscellaneous applications or applications for modification and
filing of such miscellaneous applications amounts to an abuse of process.
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in a recent order dated 4.10.2023 in MA
1572 of 2021 in CA No. 5041 of 2021 titled Supertech Limited v Emerald
Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors. has reiterated the
above-stated position, and accordingly held as follows:
Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981
By describing an application as one for "clarification" or
"modification", -- though it is really one of review -- a
party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the
circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in
the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be
permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a
detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone
Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a
similar practice.)
A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India: ... on 19 May, 1950
The aforesaid limitations are prescribed in a crystal clear
language and before a party submits that it had discovered a new
and important matter or evidence which could not be produced at the
earlier stage, the condition precedent for entertaining the review
would be to record the finding as to whether at the initial stage, the
party has acted with due diligence. "Due" means just and proper in
view of the facts and circumstances of the case (vide A.K. Gopalan
Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27).