Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers  ||  Delhi HC: CCI Cannot Levy Interest Retrospectively Before Valid Service of Demand Notice  ||  Delhi HC: VC Rules Don’t Shield PMLA Accused From Physically Appearing Before ED in Probe  ||  SC: If Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence, Magistrate May Order FIR Registration U/S .156(3) CrPC  ||  SC: Private Buses Can’t Operate on Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes  ||  Delhi HC: Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Provisional Attachment When PMLA Remedy Exists    

Yog Raj and Ors. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - (National Green Tribunal) (30 Jul 2015)

Compensation for damage 'safely inferred' to have been caused by activity

MANU/GT/0127/2015

Noting that the Applicants had filed an application 5 years after construction work by the Respondents had stopped, no major structural damage had occurred to the Applicants' houses and no technical nexus was found between the damage caused and the Respondent's activities, the Tribunal was nevertheless inclined to award the Applicants an amount to repair their houses. The Respondent's were ordered to make good the damage that was suffered, since it could be 'safely inferred' that the damage was caused by their activities, the Tribunal held.

Relevant : Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India & Ors." MANU/SC/0642/2012

Tags : CONSTRUCTION   DAMAGE   NEXUS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved