Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Subject: environment · Page 1 of about 8,754 results (0.024 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial to open GPT-powered briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results — plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jul 20 2001

T. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-20-2001

Subject : EnvironmentConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 21, 39, 41, 43, 48-A, 51-A and A (G) and 226; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Water (Prevention, Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989; The Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1976; The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977

Reported in : 2002(2)ALT193

in the surrounding areas is destroying the rock formation. The environmentalists fear that most of the sewage from even the Hi-tech

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 18 2000

Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-18-2000

Subject : EnvironmentConstitution

Acts : Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3; Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 4, 5(2) and 6; Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958; National Environmental Policy Act, 1969; Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 98; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 21, 32 and 262; Endangered Species Act, 1973

Reported in : AIR2000SC3751; (2001)1GLR434; 2000(7)SCALE34; (2000)10SCC664; [2000]Supp4SCR94

its Chairperson, Secretaries in the Ministry of Power, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Ministry of Welfare, Chief Secretaries of the concerned

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 30 2002

T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (Through K.M. Chinnappa) Vs. Union of Indi ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-30-2002

Subject : Environment

Acts : Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 35(1)(4)(5); Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 24-B; Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Section 349; Conservation Act - Section 3

Reported in : (2002)10SCC606

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. By destroying nature, environment, man is committing matricide, having in a way killed Mother

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Turn these results into brief-ready notes

May 12 2006

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs. Sri. C. Kenchappa and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-12-2006

Subject : Environment

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 47, 48A, 51A and 226; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966 - Sections 3(1), 28, 28(1), 31 and 47; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966; Town Planning Act

Reported in : AIR2006SC2038; 2006(4)ALD84(SC); [2006(3)JCR319(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC556; 2006(4)KarLJ545; 2006(6)SCALE1; (2006)6SCC371

submitted that there would be an adverse impact on the environment of the villages as the industrial area increases. Their prayer

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 07 1999

Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-07-1999

Subject : Environment

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 48A, 51A and 226; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Sections 2 and 2(3); Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 - Sections 3; Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of occupation of Forest Land prior to 1-1-1977) Special Rules, 1993 - Rule1

Reported in : AIR2000Ker131

forest lands and its inevi-table reaction to ecological balance and environmental outfit. This is brought to us by way of a

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 27 2006

Baldev Singh and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-27-2006

Subject : Environment

Reported in : 2006(3)ShimLC135

up it shall cause huge amount of pollution leading to environmental degradation. During the course of the proceedings some Gram Panchayats

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 29 2011

Shyam Bahadur Sakhya Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-29-2011

Subject : Environment

Acts : Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3, Sub-section (2), Clause (v); MMDR Act - Section 15; Environmental Protection Rules - Rule 5 (3)

No. S.O. 1533, dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, in exercise of powers under

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 29 1997

Indian Council for Environ Legal Action and anr. Vs. Union of India (U ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-29-1997

Subject : ConstitutionEnvironment

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 21, 48A and 51A; Environment (Protection) Act, 1976; Water Pollution Control Act, 1974; Air Pollution Control Act, 1981

Reported in : ILR1997KAR2956

Dr. Chokkalingam, Annamalai University, who was requested to carry out environmental impact study. In the meanwhile, NTPC also evinced interest in

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 11 1996

S. Jagannath Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-11-1996

Subject : Environment

Acts : Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3 and 8; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 32, 41, 48-A, 51-A and 253; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25-F; Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Rule 5; Fisheries Act, 1897; Wild Life Protection Act, 1972; Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

Reported in : AIR1997SC811; 1997(1)Crimes189(SC); JT1997(1)SC160; 1997(5)SCALE406; (1997)2SCC87; [1996]Supp9SCR848

said expectation is sought to be achieved by replacing the environmentally benign traditional mode of culture by semi-intensive and intensive methods.

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 18 2004

M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-2004

Subject : Environment

Acts : Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 23; National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 - Sections 2; Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 - Sections 4 and 5; Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Rules 5, 5(3), 5(4) and 6(3); Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Sections 2; Town and Country Planning Act; National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A; Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Rules; Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Sections 13 and 18; Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rules 4A, 22(4), 22(4A) and 22(5); Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Mineral Conservation and Dev

Reported in : AIR2004SC4016; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)353; (2004)3CompLJ199(SC); JT2004(4)SC181; 2004(3)SCALE396; (2004)12SCC118

of the ridge and also in the Aravalli hills causes environment degradation and what directions are required to be issued. The

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Try AI Brief & Semantic Search — 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial