PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.66 OF 2003
21 Nov 2006The public interest litigation was filed by a journalist challenging the decision of the State of Maharashtra under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regi...
Search Results for "Environmental compliance"
453 result(s) found
Found 453 result(s)
High Court
WRIT PETITION NO.2457 OF 2012
2 Apr 2013The Bombay High Court was seized with four writ petitions filed by various trade unions representing aircraft engineers, technical staff, and technici...
- 25
High Court
High Court Holds in Review Petition that CPC Amendments under Commercial Courts Act Do Not Apply to Commercial Disputes Below Specified Value. The 120‑day limit for written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is inapplicable to suits where the Specified Value is below Rs. 3 lakhs, even if the suit is before the Commercial Division under the proviso to Section 7.
1 Jun 2019The dispute arose in a commercial suit where the Plaintiff had determined the Specified Value at Rs. 20,000, which was below the threshold of Rs. 3 la...
- 50
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses State's Commercial Appeal, Upholds Arbitral Award in ICT Project Dispute — Termination Found Unlawful. Composite Contract and Direct Nexus Between State and Consortium Rendered Claim Maintainable, and Arbitral Award of Rs.178.98 Crores Not Against Public Policy.
18 Sep 2025The appeal arises from an arbitral award of Rs.178,98,38,525 in favour of respondent No.1, a consortium partner, against the State of Karnataka for wr...
- 13
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Public Interest Litigation Seeking Preservation of Land for Government Sports Complex at Navi Mumbai — Directs Restoration of Earmarked Land and Cancellation of Allotment to Private Developer. Land reserved since 2003 under Government Resolution dated 26 March 2003 for a Government Sports Complex cannot be diverted for commercial purposes; shifting the complex to a remote rural area 115 km away is arbitrary.
1 Jul 2024The Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai Center, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court challenging the actions of CID...
- 684
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Public Interest Litigation to Protect Land for Government Sports Complex at Navi Mumbai. CIDCO's commercial allotment of land earmarked for sports complex quashed; State Government's decision to shift complex to remote location set aside.
1 Jul 2024The Bombay High Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai Center, challenging the action...
- 428
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Validates Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes in Landmark Judgment. Upholding Equality Within Equality: Supreme Court Endorses State's Power to Sub-Classify Scheduled Castes for Targeted Reservation.
1 Aug 2024The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has upheld the constitutionality of sub-classifying Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservati...
- 497
High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Transfer Order of Police Officer Mother of Child with Autism on Humanitarian Grounds. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 invoked to exempt from routine transfer due to child's severe autism requiring constant maternal proximity.
13 Aug 2024The petitioner, Mrs. Devyani C. Naik, a Lady Police Sub-Inspector with 22 years of service, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutio...
- 361
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Explanations to Rule 38 of MCR, 2016 and Rule 45(8)(a) of MCDR, 2017 — Royalty Computation on Gross Sale Value Without Deduction of Royalty, DMF, and NMET Contributions is Valid. The Court held that royalty is a tax and not a contractual consideration, and the impugned explanations do not violate Article 14 or Article 265 of the Constitution.
15 Nov 2024The petitioners, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited and another, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity...
- 474
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Planned Development by YEIDA - Urgency Provisions Validly Invoked. The court held that the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for integrated development was justified and the landowners' right to hearing under Section 5-A was validly dispensed with.
26 Nov 2024The Supreme Court, in a batch of civil appeals, considered the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh throug...
- 648
