NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved