Supreme Court of India State Of Uttaranchal vs M/S. Kumaon Stone Crusher on 15 September, 2017 ... The High Court in its judgment has noticed details of few of the writ petitions facts of only leading petition which need to be briefly referred: ... the character of Forest Produce is not lost by such 59 crushing of the stone. High Court of ...
ON MAY 15 this year, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in response to a public interest suit demanding the closure of the 300-odd stone-crushing units in and around New Delhi.
The grievance of the appellant is about the directions issued in the paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment. This direction is against 343 identified stone crusher units, as mentioned in the report of the Joint Committee dated 17 th January, 2023.
Writ Petitions were filed before this Court, challenging the action of the owners/proprietors of the stone-crushers whereby stone-dust and smoke was allowed to pass into the air, and due to pollution, lives of the people living in some parts of South Delhi, especially rural, and workers, their families living at the site as well as people ...
Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S Om Stone Crusher v. State & Ors. on CaseMine.
Get free access to the complete judgment in Ceeyen Stone Crusher v. State Of Kerala on CaseMine.
supreme court judgement for stone crusher, the oyez project at iit. supreme court judgments 20012009 free ebook download as pdf file (.pdf), word doc (.doc), text ...
This Court in CST v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher (P...2(e-1) of the U.P Act appears to be similar to the definition under consideration.7. In view of the judgment of this Court in Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher (P) Ltd...have taken, the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kher Stone Crusher v. G.M, District Industries Centre (1990) 79 …
Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S. SHRIGONDA STONE CRUSHER v. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD on CaseMine.
The petitioner is the owner of the Stone Crusher known as Ashok Stone Crusher, Chorpani, Ramnagar Nainital. The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing of stone grits, stone chips and sand etc.
In an appeal by Ministry of Environment, the Supreme Court has called for a report from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the issue of pollution by Stone Crushing Units and as to ...
Get free access to the complete judgment in Shree Channabasaveshwara Stone Crusher v. State Of Karnataka on CaseMine.
Get Solution & Price Right Now! leave your message here, we'll send you an Email immediately. * *
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Suretech Hospital Medical Negligence Case: A Tale of Negligence and Unnecessary Risk-Taking Decision Respondent no. 4 and 4A are directed to submit an undertaking to shift their stone crushing units outside the residential area by 30th November, 2018.
All the writ petitioners supported the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court dated 01.07.2004 in M/s Kumaon Stone Crusher wherein, the High Court has held that no levy of Transit Fee can be made on the finished items of stone i.e. …
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld the closure order of a stone crusher, noting that the Mumbai Trans Harbour Sea Link, also known as Atal Setu, is a premium infrastructure project of national importance.
Get free access to the complete judgment in State Of Uttaranchal Petitioner(S) v. Kumaon Stone Crusher (S). on CaseMine.
The order was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6725/2008 dated 19.11.2008), and confining the definition of "mine" as defined vide explanation (b) to Section 3 of 1949 Act, observed that, the stone crushing activities carried out by those other than mine owners and at a distinct place than the mine are not …
M/S Lakhwinder Sigh Stone Crushers vs . Uoi & Ors. on 7 November, 2023. Learn how it works! Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query ( Query Alert Service ).
The observation of the Supreme Court cannot be termed to be 'obiter dicta' since the Supreme Court has held that the process of concrete by stone crushers is a manufacturing process. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the Revenue. Accordingly, all the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the …
Latest Judgments State of Uttaranchal & Ors. v. M/s. Kumaon Stone Crusher. November 26, 2021. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19445/2004. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in some of these matters pleadings are not yet complete.
This page is about stone crusher supreme court judgement, click here to get more infomation about stone crusher supreme court judgement.
Writ Petitions were filed before this Court, challenging the action of the owners/proprietors of the stone-crushers whereby stone-dust and smoke was allowed …
1 The grievance of the appellants is that the impugned order of the National Green Tribunal 1 dated 12 April 2022 issuing an ad interim direction that the stone crushers shall not …
Get free access to the complete judgment in M/s. Jai Shree Ram Stone Crusher (I) Pt. Ltd, Nainital v. DCIT, Nainital on CaseMine.
On 15 September 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a judgment in the matter of State of Uttarakhand v Kumaon Stone Crusher deciding the issue of levy of transit ...
Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment: Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India & Ors | Judgments dated August, 1991. ... He will also enquire from the mine lessees and owners of stone crushers as also from the thekedars and jamadars whether there are any advances made by them to the labourers working in the stone …
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 Kumaun Stone Crusher... v. State Of Uttarakhand... on CaseMine.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and found the transit fee under Rule 5 to be regulatory, stating that it was not necessary for the State to establish quid pro quo.