Supreme Court upholds the levy of transit fee on forest
On 15 September 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a judgment in the matter of State of Uttarakhand v Kumaon Stone Crusher deciding the issue of levy of transit
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher
“Ramraj, geru, surkhi, sand, lime, bajri, marble chips, moram, gitti, kankar, stone ballast, stone and articles of stone except of glazed stone.” 2. The respondent is a dealer engaged in purchasing of stone boulders and crushing them into stone chips, gitti and dust for the purpose of further sale.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Quarries not exempt from land ceiling in Kerala: Supreme Court
Joseph Jacob, secretary, Registered Metal Crusher Owners Association, told Frontline that there was a lack of clarity in the Supreme Court judgment and a “policy vacuum” in Kerala when it came to the issue of quarries. “In our view, there are just over 600 quarries surviving in Kerala.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors | Judgments | Supreme
No stone crusher shall operate in the above said area form August 15, 1992 onward. (3) The writ petitions filed by the owners/proprietors of stone crushers in Delhi High Court which have been transferred to this Court shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Search
Motion for divided argument filed by respondents DENIED. Oct 26 2021. In lieu of filing separate briefs in both No. 21-463 and No. 21-588 (21A85), the state respondents may file a single opening brief, limited to 20,000 words, and a single reply brief, limited to 9,000 words. (Also in 21-588 [21A85]).
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2021
12. On 11.12.2018, after the Supreme Court remand, the NGT passed a fresh order disposing of the O.A. No. 332/2017 whereby the onus was shifted to the State Government to assess the functioning of the stone crushers and in the event, they are found violating any of the environmental norms, steps were to be taken for closure of the offending units.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote-
R. v. Stone
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1997), 89 B.C.A.C. 139, 145 W.A.C. 139, [1997] B.C.J. No. 694 (QL), dismissing the Crown’s appeal from the sentence imposed on the accused by Brenner J. Appeal dismissed. David G. Butcher and Derek A. Brindle, for Bert Thomas Stone.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote 
Caswell v. GEORGE SHERMAN SAND, ETC., 424 A.2d 646
Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Filed: January 21st This petition for certiorari was brought to review a Superior Court judgment affirming a decision of the Zoning Board of Review of the Town of South Kingstown (the board). The board had granted the petition of the respondent for a special exception to operate a stone crusher on its property
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Powell, Morris v Bell's Trucking and Heavy
quarrie operated by the second defendant. Judgment was entered against. both defendants on September 23, 2004. This trial is one of an assessment. of damages. 2. The circumstances that led to the injury are these. On December 9, 2000, Mr. Powell was at the quarrie. He was asked to take some water to fill the. radiator of the stone crusher.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Supreme Court Hears Argument On Texas Fetal Heartbeat Law
Scotusblog has background and a preview:. Two months ago, Texas put in place the most restrictive abortion law since the Supreme Court decided Roe v.Wade in 1973.The law, which prohibits almost all abortions in the state, has dramatically reduced access to the procedure. On Monday, the court will hear arguments in two challenges to the law — and though the cases may determine whether the law
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Kumaon Stone Crusher | Latest
All the writ petitioners supported the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court dated 01.07.2004 in M/s Kumaon Stone Crusher wherein, the High Court has held that no levy of Transit Fee can be made on the finished items of stone i.e. stone grits, sand grits & chips etc.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Kumaon Stone Crusher | Latest
All the writ petitioners supported the judgment of Uttarakhand High Court dated 01.07.2004 in M/s Kumaon Stone Crusher wherein, the High Court has held that no levy of Transit Fee can be made on the finished items of stone i.e. stone grits, sand grits & chips etc.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Mohit Stone Crusher vs Phool Singh And Ors. on 7 November
Union of India 1992 S.C.C. 256 as also notification dated 18.12.1992 issued by the Government of Haryana came to the conclusion that installing of stone crusher was actionable nuisance and was otherwise in violation of the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as the judgment passed by this Court and accordingly restrained the
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Section 21 of the mines and minerals Act have a lot of
The claim was established on a stone crusher under the name of M/s Krishna Stone Crusher at Sanghani, Poonch Road Akhnoor. He has challenged the order of respondent No.3 and the same was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising The Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Kumar, in the matter M/s Krishna Stone Crusher V/s Union Territory of J&K and others [WP(C) No.1154/2021].
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
M/S Jk Stone Crusher vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 4 June, 2021
12. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, 2020 SCC Online SC 847 elaborately dealt with the scope and applicability of audi alteram partem rule. Hon''ble the Supreme Court after surveying the entire case law, in paragraph No.39 held thus:- "39. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals:
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
M/S Mahalaxmi Stone Crushing Co vs State Of Haryana And
Clause 9 of the impugned advertisement, thus, not only violates the mandate of the Apex Court, it also runs contrary to the spirit of the notification dated 18.12.1997 and is accordingly quashed qua those stone-crushers who have been closed down under the orders dated 15.05.1992 passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Stone v. Thompson :: 2019 :: South Carolina Supreme Court
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court A. Marion Stone, III, Respondent, v. Susan B. Thompson, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2017-000227 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Appeal from Charleston County Jocelyn B. Cate, Family Court Judge Opinion No. 27876 Heard October 16, 2018 – Filed April 3, 2019 REVERSED Donald Bruce Clark, of Donald B. Clark, LLC, of Charleston
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
M/S. VISHNU STONE CRUSHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S. VISHNU STONE CRUSHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA on CaseMine.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2021
12. On 11.12.2018, after the Supreme Court remand, the NGT passed a fresh order disposing of the O.A. No. 332/2017 whereby the onus was shifted to the State Government to assess the functioning of the stone crushers and in the event, they are found violating any of the environmental norms, steps were to be taken for closure of the offending units.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote-
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher
“Ramraj, geru, surkhi, sand, lime, bajri, marble chips, moram, gitti, kankar, stone ballast, stone and articles of stone except of glazed stone.” 2. The respondent is a dealer engaged in purchasing of stone boulders and crushing them into stone chips, gitti and dust for the purpose of further sale.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote 
Supreme Court stays Uttarakhand HC order declaring Ganga
Supreme Court stays Uttarakhand HC order declaring Ganga, Yamuna as living Published: Jul 07,201708:24 PM by PTI. Share The high court verdict had come on a PIL of Haridwar resident Mohammad Salim over mining and stone crushing along the banks of the Ganga.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Pollution stone crusher suprim court
Pollution stone crusher suprim court Products. As a leading global manufacturer of crushing, grinding and mining equipments, we offer advanced, reasonable solutions for any size-reduction requirements including, Pollution stone crusher suprim court, quarry, aggregate, and different kinds of minerals.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Revenue Record Is Not A Document Of Title : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed in a judgment that revenue record is not a document of title. 1927 the bench while referring to judgement in State of Uttarakhand and Ors v Kumaon Stone Crusher
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. ¶1 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. The defendant, Payne & Dolan, Inc. (Payne & Dolan), seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals, which affirmed a circuit court summary judgment in favor of plaintiff residents (plaintiffs) of the
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Beau Songe Development Limited (Appellant) v The United
Mauritius, including a stone-crushing plant at Bambous, close to the BSD site. UBP a judgment dated 7 July 2016, the Supreme Court (Peeroo Ag SPJ, Chui Yew Cheong J) allowed the appeal and quashed the determination of the Tribunal. BSD now appeals to the Board. The appeal is opposed by UBP.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
LL
Supreme Court Judgements / Orders Supreme Court sets aside interim order passed by National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) against stone crushers on the ground of audi alteram partem M/s Shree Ganesh Stone Crusher & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.; Order dated 02 November 20201 A three judge bench comprising of Justice
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2021
12. On 11.12.2018, after the Supreme Court remand, the NGT passed a fresh order disposing of the O.A. No. 332/2017 whereby the onus was shifted to the State Government to assess the functioning of the stone crushers and in the event, they are found violating any of the environmental norms, steps were to be taken for closure of the offending units.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P v. Lal Kunwa Stone Crusher
“Ramraj, geru, surkhi, sand, lime, bajri, marble chips, moram, gitti, kankar, stone ballast, stone and articles of stone except of glazed stone.” 2. The respondent is a dealer engaged in purchasing of stone boulders and crushing them into stone chips, gitti and dust for the purpose of further sale.
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
m/s shree ganesh stone crusher & ors. appellant(s) versus the state of haryana & ors. respondent(s) (with ia no.118337/2019-exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and ia no.118333/2019-ex-parte stay and ia no.118330/2019-permission to file appealmm and i.a.no. 155078 of 2019 application for vacating stay) with c.a. no. 7315/2019 (xvii)
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Silicosis Victims and the Importance of the Supreme Court
Silicosis Victims and the Importance of the Supreme Court Judgment. The Supreme Court''s order on compensation to silicosis victims is a relief to workers and their families who have had a long
WhatsAppGet PriceGet A Quote
Mecca 500TPH Granite Crushing Plant