Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 38k definitions Court: supreme court of india Page 7 of about 4,566 results (0.284 seconds)

Sh. Gunnaseelam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1994SC1816; 1994CriLJ3835

..... show regarding his applying to the wild-life warden on the date of seizure as regards the purchase of the elephant.6. the appellant under ground no. 5 of the appeal grounds has made a specific statement that he produced the sale deed and, represented that he had applied for a licence under the wildlife (protection) act, 1972 (central act, 53 of 1972) that he ..... the appellant seeking an order that the cow elephant seized from his possession be returned to his custody.3. heard the learned counsel for both the parties. admittedly, the chief wild-life warden, tamil nadu, coimbatore had issued a certificate of ownership (form no. 13) in the first week of january, 1990 (i.e. 3-l-1990)certifyingthatthiru s. gunaseelam (appellant herein .....

Bengaluru Development Authority Vs. Mr. Sudhakar Hegde

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... activity specified in category b will be treated as category a, if located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of: (i) protected areas notified under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, (ii) critically polluted areas as notified by the central pollution control board from time to time, (iii) notified eco- sensitive areas, (iv) ..... conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the environment (protection) act 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the environment (protection) act 1986, the central government issued a notification dated 1 december 2009 amending, inter alia, para 7(f) of the schedule ..... conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the environment (protection) act 1986 act read with clause (d) of sub-rule 3 of rule 5 of the environment (protection) rules, 1986, issued a notification imposing restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and modernisation of any activity or a new .....

In Re : T.n. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the project has been granted in respect of goa portion without first obtaining the advice of ntca as statutorily required under section 38 (0) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972; xi) there is a gross under estimation of the requirement of virgin forest land for implementation of the project in as much as the project ..... state of karnataka and goa. it was further stated that the bhagwan mahaveer wildlife sanctuary has not been notified as a tiger reserve under the wildlife protection act, 1972 and therefore there was no need for rvnl to approach the ntca seeking a report for the goa part of the project. it was ..... the protected areas under the wildlife protection act, 1972. rvnl has proposed to undertake impact assessment, thorough study of long-term impact, planning of various mitigation measures for safeguarding interest of wildlife habitat and flora and fauna. rvnl has also proposed to construct under-passes/overbridges at identified locations of track crossings by wild animals .....

Tarun Bharat Sangh Vs. U.O.i. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT1993(3)SC1; 1993(2)SCALE441; 1993Supp(1)SCC4; [1993]3SCR21

..... the illegal mining is going on has been declared as a tiger reserve under rajasthan wild animals and birds protection act, 1951, as a sanctuary and a national park under wild life (protection) act, 1972, and as protected forest under the rajasthan forest act, 1953. these various notifications, said the petitioner, prohibit all or any mining activity ..... directions filed by the state of rajasthan after considering the said report.(b)notification issued by the central government under section 3 of the environment (protection) act, 1986 on may 7, 1992:20. this notification expressly prohibits the carrying on the mining operations, except with the central government's prior ..... , as per the rajasthan government map though outside the sanctuary. may be so. but it cannot be forgotten that purpose of forest acts and purpose of environmental protection acts may not always be the same. such closure may not serve the environmental purpose - assuming that factual situation asserted by the learned .....

Mustafa Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... provisions of section 50 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and the amendments made thereunder do not in any way affect the magistrate s power to make an order of interim release of the vehicle under ..... vehicle in the commission of an offence under the act, without anything else would bar its interim release appears to be quite unreasonable. the court held that the ..... punishment to which the person affected thereby may be liable under this act. thus, the punishment consequent to the prosecution is distinct from the order of confiscation passed by the collector.28) in madhukar rao s case, the provisions of the code and that of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 were examined. the court found that the use of a .....

Noble M Paikada Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... or a sanctuary, national park, game reserve or closed area notified as such under the wild life civil appeal nos.1628-29 of 2021 page 16 of 32 (protection) act, 1972 or places protected under any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or in pursuance of any decision made in any international conference, association or other body. (ix) ..... of ordinary earth from the purview of the eia notification and that the exemption as granted for the removal of ordinary earth was illegal and ultra vires the environment protection act as well as the civil appeal nos.1628-29 of 2021 page 20 of 32 judgment of this hon'ble court in deepak kumar's judgment. it is ..... environment and forests (for short, moef ) in exercise of powers under sub- section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the environment (protection) act, 1986 (for short, the ep act ) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the environment civil appeal nos.1628-29 of 2021 page 1 of 32 .....

Fuleshwar Gope Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... , 1908; section 77 of the railways act, 1890; section 15 of the bombay rent act, 1947; section 213 of the succession act, 1925; section 5-a of the prevention of corruption act, 1947; section 7 of the stamp act, 1899; section 108 of the companies act, 1956; section 20(1) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954; section 55 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972; the proviso to section ..... 33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (as amended .....

Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu .

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... be taken into consideration. it is with this in mind, the parliament has enacted the forest (conservation) act, 1980, the wild life (protection) act, 1972 as amended by act 28 of 1986, the environment (protection) act, 1986 and so on. with this background, we have to examine the challenge against vesting of forest, ..... held in janmam in the state of tamil nadu under the janmam act.7. janmam act provides for the vesting of forest and certain other categories of land under section 3 of the janmam act ..... the constitution, among others.12. right to equality before law, right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, right to protection of life and personal liberty, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion etc. are all fundamental rights guaranteed under part iii of the .....

In Re : t.n. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... remove fallen trees or fell and remove diseased or dry standing timber from areas other than those notified under section 18 or 35 of the wild life protection act, 1972 or any other act banning such felling or removal of trees.3. for this purpose, the state government is to constitute an expert committee comprising a representative from moef ..... are to be carried out in steep slopes and along streams and nallas as per the standard prescription in the working plan code and in the falling under protection cum rehabilitation working circle; forest areas xv) state government shall prepare three separate comprehensive management plans one each for chil, sal and khair respectively covering the ..... after felling is complete in each block of 20 hectares.6. it should also be ensured that these forest areas are kept free from grazing and are protected; 10 7. the state should also ensure that sufficient number of healthy saplings are planted so that there is proper regeneration of the forest.8. this .....

The State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)219; [2004]266ITR721(SC); JT2004(1)SC375; 2004(1)SCALE425; (2004)10SCC201

..... may be made to the decisions of this court in indianhandicraft emporium v. union of india and balram kumawat v. union of india,wherein vires of wild life protection act has been upheld by applying theprinciples of 'purposive construction".it is relevant to note that in r.k. garg v. union of india [air 1981sc 2138 ..... the ground water was a national wealth andit belongs to the entire society. it was observed that water was nectarsustaining life on earth and, thus, the state has a duty to protect groundwater against excessive exploitation and inaction on its part tantamountsto infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 21 ofthe ..... reservationof area for the purpose of conservation. section 18 of the act imposes astatutory duty upon the central government to take all such steps as may benecessary for the conservation and systematic development of minerals inindia and for the protection of environment by preventing or controllingany pollution which may be caused by .....