Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Environment

Environment

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – 3(2)(v)(1) – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5(3)(d) – The Court finds the exemption to be unguided and arbitrary, lacking specific criteria for the quantity of earth extraction and the definition of linear projects – The Court concludes that the exemption under item 6 of the impugned notification is illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India – The amended notification also fails to address these concerns adequately – Appeal Partly allowed.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NOBLE M. PAIKADA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Environment

Environmental Rule of Law – The importance of ensuring the effective functioning of these environmental bodies as this is imperative for the protection, restitution, and development of the ecology – The role of the constitutional courts is therefore to monitor the proper institutionalisation of environmental regulatory bodies and authorities

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Environment

Protection of Chittorgarh Fort – Directions issued – Blasting operations undertaken for limestone extraction resulting in possible damage to the existing structures of the Chittorgarh Fort – Keeping in perspective the continuous exposure of ancient monuments to peak particle velocity (PPV) arising from blasting, a radius of five kilometres from the compound wall of the Fort shall not be subjected to mining by blasting or use of explosives for mining of any minerals

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

Environment

Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 – Section 18 – Development Plan – – NGT could not have directed the delegatee who has been delegated powers under the TCP Act to enact the regulations, to do so in a particular manner – Development plan, which has been finalized after taking recourse to the statutory provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire developmental activities to a standstill.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind…

Environment

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 15 and 18(1) – Environment Pollution – Pollution created by Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad – NGT has inter alia observed that there is an option to restrict the entry of diesel vehicles in the said ICDs at Tughlakabad by diverting these vehicles to the ICDs at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas or any other ICD around Delhi so as to control the pollution in Delhi NCR, as if only the people living in Delhi NCR alone are entitled to pollution free atmosphere and not those living in other parts of the country. Such an observation by the NGT is in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. — Appellant Vs. AJAY KHERA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Environment

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Sections 25 and 26 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – Section 21 – Grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) – An appeal could have been preferred by the appellant for challenging condition no. 4 by taking recourse to Section 28 of the Water Act and Section 31 of the Air Act – In fact, the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that the attention of the Appellate Authority was invited to the aforesaid condition no.4 – After having acted upon the ex-post facto CTE dated 18th October 2017, the appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SWETA ESTATE PVT. LTD. GURGAON — Appellant Vs. HARYANA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Environment

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(6) – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Section 5 – Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Order of ban on ‘reinforced’ paper cups is upheld and in the matter of ban non-woven plastic bags, back to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) for consideration – However, given that there is scientific basis for the ban, and it is the State Government’s policy decision to ban numerous categories of single use plastic products, in public interest, there is little room or reason, for this court to interfere on the ground of merits of the ban

Oct 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY PAPER CUP MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw