stone crusher in delhi m c mehta etc etc vs unio
MC Mehta etc etc Vs Union of India and Others etc etc
MC Mehta etc etc Vs Union of India and Others etc etc by Court Verdict · May 15, 1992 Appeal: Writ Petition (Civil) No4677 of 1985 WITH TC (Civil) No7589 ofHEADNOTE: Writ Petitions were filed before this Court, challenging the action of the owners/proprietors of the stonecrushers whereby stonedust and smoke was allowed to passMCMehta Vs Union of India Legal Authority
MC Mehta v Union of India, WP 4677/1985 (19920515)
M C Mehta Vs Union of India and Others Writ Petition (Civil) No 4677 of 1985 (Kuldip Singh, K Ramaswamy JJ) 15051992 No stone crusher shall operate in the UnionSUPREME COURT OF INDIA MC MEHTA ETC ETCPETITIONER Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC ETCRESPONDENT DATE OF JUDGMENT15/05/1992Mc Mehta V Union of India & Ors B&B Associates LLP
MC Mehta Etc Etc vs Union Of India And Others Etc Etc
PETITIONER: MC MEHTA ETC ETC Vs RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC ETC DATE OF JUDGMENT15/05/1992 BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH:Union of India and Others Writ Petition (Civil) No 4677 of 1985 (Kuldip Singh, K Ramaswamy JJ) 15051992 ORDER 1 We reserved judgment in these matters on April 24,MC Mehta v Union of India, WP 4677/1985 (19920515)
MC MEHTA ETC ETC vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
MC MEHTA ETC ETC vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC ETC Date: May 15, 1992 Court: Supreme Court of India Judgment Facts Summary Issue Analysis BACK ORIGINALStone Crusher Di Delhi M C Mehta Etc Etc Vs Unio Stone Crusher Di Delhi M C Mehta Etc Etc Vs Unio The company mainly produces five series of products, including crushing equipment,stone crusher di delhi m c mehta etc etc vs unio
stone crusher in delhi m c mehta etc etc vs unio
stone crusher union electroradar · issuance of direction to the respondents to close stone crushing business in due to stone crushing were noticed by high power committee appointedMCMEHTA Vs UNION OF INDIA Bench: YK SABHARWAL,HK SEMA Case number: WP(C) No / 1985 Diary number: 63996 / 1985 Advocates: PETITIONERINMCMehta Vs Union of India Legal Authority
MC Mehta v Union of India, WP 4677/1985 (19920515)
MC Mehta v Union of India, WP 4677/1985 (19920515) (Delhi Land Use Case: Stone Crushers) 1 We reserved judgment in these matters on April 24, 1992 We heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length for several days We have been taken through the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, Master Plan for Delhi publishedMC Mehta Etc Etc vs Union Of India And Others Etc Etc on 15 May, 1992 The Stone crushers in the Union territory of Delhi/FaridabadBallabgarh Complex which do not have valid licences from the Authorities under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957/Faridabad Complex AdministrationMC Mehta Etc Etc vs Union Of India And Others Etc Etc
MC Mehta Vs Union of India & Ors | Judgments
(a) the mechanical stone crushers 358 established/operating in Lal Kuan, Anand Parbat, Rajokri, Tughlakabad and in any other area of Union territory of Delhi and also in Suraj Kund, Lakhanpur, Lakkarpur, Kattan, Gurukul, Badkhal, Pallinangla, Saraikhaja, Anangpur and Ballabgarh areas of Haryana should stop operating/functioning with effect fromIn the Supreme Court of India Civil Original Jurisdiction Equivalent Citation: 1987 AIR 965, 1986 SCR (1) 312 Petitioner M C Mehta & Anr Etc Respondent Union of India & Ors Decided on 17 th February 1986 Bench Hon’ble Chief Justice PN Bhagwati, Hon’ble Justice DP Madon, Hon’ble Justice GL Oza Introduction: Article 21 of the Constitution gives the rightM C Mehta & Anr Etc vs Union of India & Ors
MC MEHTA ETC ETC vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
MC MEHTA ETC ETC vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC ETC Date: May 15, 1992 Court: Supreme Court of India Judgment Facts Summary Issue Analysis BACK ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No4677 of 1985 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)MC Mehta vs Union of India case, also known as the Oleum Gas Leakage case, established the rule of absolute liability by which the wrongdoer is liable even without his fault and with no exceptions Facts of MC Mehta v Union of India: 1 A writ petition was filed by MC Mehta Articles 21 and 32 of the ConstitutionMC Mehta vs Union of India Case Summary 1987 SC 1086
MC MEHTA Vs UNION OF INDIA (1987 AIR 1086) Lawcian
On 6 December 1985, the District Magistrate, Delhi, ordered Shriram to cease the occupation of hazardous and lethal chemicals and gases, in compliance with Section 133(1) of CrPC, including chlorine, oleum, super chlorine, phosphate, etc, at its Delhi site within two days and to withdraw these chemicals and gases from Delhi within seven days At this juncture MCMehta moved toThe issue of commercial use of residential premises was decided by the Court in judgment dated 16th February, 2006 in MC Mehta v Union of India and Ors reported in (2006) 3 SCC 399 While reversing a Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court, the stand of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was accepted and it was held that the CommissionerCase Brief: MC Mehta v Union of India and Ors
MC Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors Law Times Journal
Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 63, MC Mehta v Union of India (Matter regarding emission standard for vehicles), (1999) 6 SCC 12, MC Mehta v Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 191 ND Jayal v Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362 Shantistar Builders v Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors Etc, AIR 1990 SC 630 Society for the Clean Environment v UnionMatters relating to brick kilns 4 Heard the learned counsel for the parties 5 In view of the order dated 1051996 passed in MC Mehta (Taj Trapezium Pollution) v Union of India 2001 9 SCC 235 several brick kilns which were closed by the said order had filed applications seeking reopening or restarting of the brick kilnsMC Mehta v Union Of India And Others Casemine
MC Mehta v Union of India, WP 4677/1985 (19920515)
MC Mehta v Union of India, WP 4677/1985 (19920515) (Delhi Land Use Case: Stone Crushers) 1 We reserved judgment in these matters on April 24, 1992 We heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length for several days We have been taken through the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, Master Plan for Delhi publishedThere was a complaint filed against the industry The management was asked by the District Magistrate, Delhi to close down the unit and to show the cause behind the leakage to avoid the order After this disastrous incident and advocate, MC Mehta filed a PIL petition in the SC article 32 of the Constitution was used to file the PIL, in thisMC MEHTA V UNION OF INDIA AND Ors 1987 Indian
MC MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA | LawFoyer
case mc mehta vs union of india : citation: 1991 scr (1) 866 1991 scc (2) 353: date of the case : 14 march 1991: petitioner: mc mehta: respondents : union of india and ors bench /judges : misra rangnath (cj) constitiuion involved: the constitution of india act 1949 the air (prevention and control of population) 1981Facts of the case MC Mehta, an environmental lawyer and social activist, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India against about 89 respondents, wherein Respondent 1, Respondent 7, Respondent 8 and Respondent 9 were Union of India, the Chairman of the Central Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution, theCase Analysis: MC Mehta v Union of India Indian Law
MC Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors Law Times Journal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WP (CIVIL) NO 13029 OF 1985 Petitioner MC Mehta Respondent Union Of India & Ors Date of Judgement 24 th October, 2018 Bench Deepak Gupta; Abdul Nazeer; Madan B Lokur Advocates who appeared in this case: For Appearing Parties: Harish Salve, Sr Adv, Aparajita Singh, ADN Rao, SiddharthaMC Mehta vs Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086: The Supreme Court was managing cases of spillage of oleum gas on the 4th and 6th December, 1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, Delhi Because of this spillage, one advocate and a few others had diedDoctrine of Absolute Liability (MC Mehta vs Union of India)
Case Brief: MC Mehta v Union of India and Ors
The issue of commercial use of residential premises was decided by the Court in judgment dated 16th February, 2006 in MC Mehta v Union of India and Ors reported in (2006) 3 SCC 399 While reversing a Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court, the stand of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was accepted and it was held that the CommissionerFacts · MC Mehta filed a petition due to the lingering threat to the beauty of Taj Mahal to appeal the Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act 1981 and Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act 1974 and Environmental Protection Act 1986 for the objective of transferring of 292 factories to stop discharge by coal usingMC Mehta v Union of India, 1986 – Taj Trapezium Case
MC MEHTA Vs UNION OF INDIA (1987 AIR 1086) Lawcian
On 6 December 1985, the District Magistrate, Delhi, ordered Shriram to cease the occupation of hazardous and lethal chemicals and gases, in compliance with Section 133(1) of CrPC, including chlorine, oleum, super chlorine, phosphate, etc, at its Delhi site within two days and to withdraw these chemicals and gases from Delhi within seven days At this juncture MCMehta moved to2 天前The Oleum Gas Leak Case Background The case took place between MC Mehta and Union of India in 1985 This was a year after the Bhopal Gas tragedy took place Mehta demanded that Shriram Industries, located in a congested place in Delhi, needed to close down On 4 th and 6 th December, the industry leaked petroleum gasMC Mehta vs Union of India History, Background