Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S LUCKY STONE CRUSHER v MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SATNA on CaseMine
JUDGMENT Dated this the 27 th day of October 2022 The 1 st and 2 nd respondents had entered into an agreement with respect to the work up gradation of the road from Thalassery to Valavupara At the instance of the contractor / 2 nd respondent materials for the work was supplied by the petitioner Difference of opinion between the 1 st and 2 nd
JUDGMENT Dt 1 The petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging order dated whereby the learned Principal District Judge Pulwama has while entertaining the suit filed by the plaintiffs issued notice to the defendants in an application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
JUDGMENT Mr Adarsh Bhagat GA for R 1 1 The petitioners claim to be involved in the business of stone crushing under the valid permission granted by the authorities concerned and are aggrieved of the Government order bearing No 1018 JK GAD of 2020 dated whereby the respondent No 1 has accorded sanction to the constitution of a
i Hazara Stone Crusher ii AnsarMajeed Khan Stone Crusher iii Gujjar Stone Crusher He has also stated that pursuant to the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan operations of the said crushermachines were stopped Similarly the Environment Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Respondents no 7 & 8
Stone Crusher units which are in the aforesaid prohibited limits shall shift to other areas within six months from the date of publication of this notification in the Orissa Gazette 3 It has been stated at the Bar that the issue involved herein has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Shree
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District Regulation of Stone Crusher and Licencing Authority
Jammu & Kashmir High Court M/S Trikuta Stone Crusher & Others vs Union Territory J&K & Others on 19 April 2021 JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR JUDGE JUDGMENT 1 The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking inter alia following directions i A direction to the respondents to allow them to procure raw material from lessees of the Geology
Get free access to the complete judgment in Shree Channabasaveshwara Stone Crusher v State Of Karnataka on CaseMine
117 2024 phhc 023302 db in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp 3818 2024 date of decision m/s krishna stone crusher i
It held that the character of Forest Produce is not lost by such crushing of the stone High Court of Uttarakhand has taken a contrary view in its judgment dated in Kumaon Stone Crusher Supra as noted above 63 Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have relied on few judgments of this Court which need to be noticed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition M/S No 1767 of 2017 M/S Sidhbali Stone Crusher & othersPetitioners State of Uttarakhand & With Writ Petition M/S No 433 of 2017 Ajeet Stone IndustriesPetitioner Union of India & OthersRespondents Ms Sheetal Advocate holding brief of Mr
Few paragraphs of the judgments given by the learned Single Judge are being reproduced below As per dictum of Honble Apex Court in the case of Sitapur Packaging supra transit fee under Rule 5 is clearly regulatory in nature and thus it was not necessary for the State Government to establish quid pro quo therefore this judgment has full
Get free access to the complete judgment in Sunrise Stone Crusher Pvt Ltd v State Of And Others on CaseMine Get free access to the complete judgment in Sunrise Stone Crusher Pvt Ltd v State Of It is stated that the Court was informed about the subsequent amendment in 2019 hence this Court vide its judgment dated 15 March
37 A WP 838 2021 J odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO 838 of 2021 M/s Komal Stone Crusher PETITIONER Komal Construction Company The Eligible Industrial Unit under the package Scheme of Incentives 2007 situated at Survey /2 Mouza Shripur District Yavatmal
The learned Additional Government Advocate placing reliance on the order of the Apex Court dated 11th December 2018 in Civil /1995 Thirumulpad vs Union of India and others submitted that Jogimatti Sanctuary is covered by the said order and the judgment rendered in /2020 is in respect of a National
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mahesh Chandra Sharma J — Since all these writ petitions relate to refusal to operate the Stone Crushers in villages Indroli Angrawali and Fatehpur in Tehsil Kaman District Bharatpur under the provisions of Section 21A of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1981 by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board
ii Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pass appropriate order on the application dated 4 7 2014 submitted by the petitioner seeking permission and NOC for running Stone Crusher within the period as specified by the Honble Court as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances
i Hazara Stone Crusher ii AnsarMajeed Khan Stone Crusher iii Gujjar Stone Crusher He has also stated that pursuant to the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan operations of the said crushermachines were stopped Similarly the Environment Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Respondents no 7 & 8
Get free access to the complete judgment in Ceeyen Stone Crusher v State Of Kerala on CaseMine Get free access to the complete judgment in Ceeyen Stone Crusher v State Of Kerala on CaseMine Log In India; Kasargod District extending Hectors of land as applied vide Exhibit P7 within a time fixed by this Hon ble Court
Supreme Court Daily Orders State Of Uttaranchal vs M/S Kumaon Stone Crusher on 27 July 2017 We find from the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court that the High Court has not dealt with various issues which were raised by the appellant herein Instead it has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant with the observations that
The stone crusher has damaged the entire river/Khad "Balyana" 1986 in compliance of directions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court vide judgment dated in CWP No 7949/2011 and 7951 Desh Raj v/s State of HP & others and Yog Raj v/s State of
4 required to be obtained as per MoEF Notification dated The Apex Court while deciding the question took into consideration recommendations made by the Ministry of
© Copyright 2024 By Ore Crushing Equipment Manufacturer
