Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 99 general rule as to evidence Court: sikkim Page 1 of about 1 results (0.023 seconds)

Jun 05 2014 (HC)

Chewang Pintso Bhutia, East Sikkim and Another Vs. State of Sikkim thr ...

Court : Sikkim

..... be, by the state level environment impact assessment authority, duly constituted by the central government under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said act, in accordance with the procedure specified hereinafter in this notification. 2. requirements of prior environmental clearance (ec):- the following projects or activities shall require ..... february 2002 requested the state government to list out such areas and furnish detailed proposals for their notification as ecosensitive areas under the environment (protection) act, 1986. however many states/departments had raised concerns over the 10 km range limits. the matter was, therefore, placed before the national board for ..... the various provisions to indicate the scope of these two legislations. he, however, emphasized that under sections 18 and 35 under chapter iv of the act provided for protected areas it was the state governments which had been vested with the power to declare sanctuaries and national parks respectively. similarly, under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2014 (HC)

Silli Man Subba and Others Vs. Man Bahadur Subba and Others

Court : Sikkim

..... compensation the relevant multiplier as prescribed under the second schedule to section 163a of the act was adopted and nothing further. the components of award on pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages claimed by the appellants were awarded as being reasonable and just as per ..... set aside. (vi) the second contention raised by mr. tsewang namgyal that the award had been erroneously passed by the learned claims tribunal under section 163a of the act, in my view, does not appear to be correct. on a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is quite evident that the learned claims tribunal, while computing the ..... witness box to prove that he had indeed issued the income certificate. even otherwise, it is trite that in cases filed under the provisions of the motor vehicles act, 1988, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. as noted earlier, the respondent no.2- company chose not to appear and contest the case before the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //