Search:
Advance Search
Introduction | About Us | Legal Queries | Forums | Events | Campaigns | FAQ's | Contact Us | Home
CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE IS ONLY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE
You are here: Home → Water/River → Case Laws → High Court
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
 
Document Actions

High Court

Up one level
Appellants: C. Sankareswaran and R. Arunagiri Vs. Respondent: The Commissioner, Land Ceiling and Land Reforms and Ors. Decided On: 05.12.2006 — by admin — last modified 2007-10-06 17:00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
R.A. Goel v. Union of India and Others AIR 2000 P& H 320 — by admin — last modified 2007-11-05 14:07
 
Rampal v State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 Raj. 121 — by admin — last modified 2007-11-09 11:42
 
Vijay Singh Punia Vs. Raj. State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution and Ors. Decided On: 07.03.2003 — by admin — last modified 2007-11-13 11:48
 
Appellants: State of M.P. Vs. Respondent: Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Ors: Decided On: 19.08.2003 — by admin — last modified 2007-11-13 12:12
 
Appellants: Gujarat Pollution Control Board Vs. Respondent: Parmar Devusinh Shersinh and Ors. : Decided On: 05.05.2000 — by admin — last modified 2008-04-28 14:24
Citation: AIR2001Guj11, (2001)1GLR114
Appellants: Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.:Decided On: 03.11.2008 — by admin — last modified 2009-01-09 15:26
 
Appellants: S. David Vs. Respondent: The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar and The Geologist Decided On: 03.08.2009 — by admin — last modified 2009-09-07 16:08
 
Appellants: Dighi Koli Samaj Mumbai Rahivasi Sangh (Regd.) through its Secretary Shri Jagannath Ambaji Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) through its Ministry of Environment and Forest Paryavaran Bhavan and Ors.: — by admin — last modified 2009-09-08 17:31
 
Appellants: Unnikirhsnan T.V. Vs. Respondent: The District Collector, The Sub Inspector of Police and The State of Kerala:Decided On: 17.08.2009 — by admin — last modified 2009-10-09 16:08
 
Appellants: S. David Vs. Respondent: The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar and The Geologist :Decided On: 03.08.2009 — by admin — last modified 2009-10-09 16:17
 
Sri V.C. Chinnappa Goudar S/o Chandrashekar Goudar, Commissioner, City Municipal Council Vs. Respondent: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Decided On: 30.10.2008 — by admin — last modified 2010-10-30 10:26
Background facts: The Petitioner, a Commissioner of Nippani Municipality, had preferred an appeal under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 on refusal of extension of prior approval granted to discharge treated effluents into the Ambalajhuri river. While the appeal was pending, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board took legal action against the petitioner for having committed an offence under Section 48 of the Act. So aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred the above petition, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the complaint and all legal proceedings against him.
Appellant: CESC Limited Vs. Respondents: West Bengal Pollution Control Board & Ors.:Decided On: 17.11.2008 — by admin — last modified 2010-10-30 10:45
Background facts: The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of its writ petition by which it had challenged two notices issued by the first respondent requiring the appellant to show-cause as to why criminal proceedings should not be launched against its officers under The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.
Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee rep. by its Secretary Mr. R. Rajendran Vs. The District Collector and Ors.:Decided on 28.01.2010 — by admin — last modified 2010-10-30 12:35
The judgement deals with two writ petition filed in the High Court of Madras regarding alleged inaction in part of certain tanneries in the State of Tamilnadu for the prevention of pollution.
Harikishan Ramniklal Joshi (Asst. Law Officer) v. State of Gujarat: Decided On: 10.02.2010 — by admin — last modified 2010-10-30 12:37
The case came before the HC in appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the lower court. The accused were involved in the manufacture of remezol dyes which resulted in the discharge of 400 liters of polluted water in the canal without obtaining the requisite permission.
Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samity Maharashtra, through its Chairman Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents: Date on 8 February 2011 — by admin — last modified 2011-06-28 13:48
wp564405.odt: 8th February, 2011
V.M. Thankachan Vs. Bharanicavu Grama Panchayat and Ors. — by admin — last modified 2011-11-09 17:49
NLS/ENVIS/07.07.2010/Environment/High Court of Kerala
Appellants: Mohammed Iqbal Vs. Respondent: The State of M.P. and Anr. — by admin — last modified 2011-11-10 14:00
Decided On: 03.02.2011
AndhashraddhaNirmulanSamity Maharashtra, through its Chairman Dr. NarendraAchutDabholkar and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. — by admin — last modified 2011-11-10 14:02
NLS/ENVIS/08.02.2011/Environment-Water Pollution/ High Court of Bombay