LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 9, 2016

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002-when another application was filed under Section 17(1) of the Act, the cause of action was different. At an earlier point of time, the issuance of notice as well as notice for sale of the flat had been challenged, whereas the subsequent application had been filed after the auction had been held. The cause of action in respect of both the applications was not same and therefore, in our opinion, the second application for a different cause of action was maintainable.=2016 Dec.http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=44294 - OASIS DEALCOM PVT. LTD. Vs. KHAZANA DEALCOMM PVT.LTD. & ORS. ANIL R. DAVE, UDAY UMESH LALIT

›
                                                              NON-REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...
Tuesday, August 28, 2012

A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 The Act is purely regulatory in nature. Sinking of bore-well is not a prohibited activity. It is only in the process of regulation that certain restrictions are placed, on the freedom of a citizen to sink bore-well in his land. Such a freedom can be curtailed, only by making reference to the relevant provisions of law. The situations contemplated under the Act are many, ranging from prohibition of pumping of water from existing wells, to the one of banning the sinking of new wells, in the area as regards which a declaration issued under Section 11 of the Act, is in operation. The sinking of well can be found fault with, if only it is found to be in contravention of any particular provision of law. Further, it is only when the reasons are communicated to the affected person, through an order in writing that he would be in a position to know the violation, if any on his part, and can pursue the remedies. It has already been pointed that the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders against the petitioner, nor any provision of any law was mentioned in the show cause notice. The seizure of the equipment and sealing of bore-well cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and respondents 2 and 3 are directed to handover the seized equipment and remove the seal, if any, put on the bore-well. It is, however, left open to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders, duly referring to the relevant provisions of law and take further steps as provided for under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

›
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY           WRIT PETITION No.17648 OF 2012           30.07.2012 B.Yadagiri District Col...