Search Results for "Storm Water Drains"

23 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 23 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Encroachment on B-Kharab Land: Key Judgment Every Property Owner Must Know.

The writ petitions were filed challenging action of BBMP alleging construction over a storm water drain and seeking protection from demolition –...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Municipal Corporation's Appeal in Tubewell User Charges Dispute. Levy of User Charges for Discharge of Waste Water into Municipal Sewer is Not a Tax or Fee Under Sections 87 and 88 of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.

The Municipal Corporation, Faridabad appealed against a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court order dated 21.12.2015, which dismissed its ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Resort Construction in Cavelossim, Goa, Holding No Violation of CRZ Norms or Building Regulations. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish any illegality or public nuisance, and the construction was lawfully permitted.

The petitioner, Cavelossim Villagers Forum, a registered society, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court at Goa, challenging ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Levy of Sewerage Cess on Industrial Unit Discharging Effluents Through Common Treatment Plant into Board's Sewer System. Section 55 of HMWS&S Act, 1989 imposes cess irrespective of direct connection, and proviso applies only when area is not served by any sewerage system.

The appellant, Vasant Chemicals Limited, an amalgamated company manufacturing dye intermediates, obtained bulk water supply from the Hyderabad Metropo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal for Development Rights Certificate in Land Reservation Case. Held That Landowner Entitled to DRC for Entire Reserved Area Under Section 126(1)(c) of MRTP Act, 1966.

The appellants, Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and its constituted attorney, owned land bearing CTS No. 2B (part) and 3B in Mumbai, wh...