Menu
Mobile crushers can also be called mobile crushing plants, mobile crushers, etc. It is an inevitable product of high-tech crushing technology in the new era, and its main features are that it can be operated mobilely, can walk freely, and is more convenient for transitions, ensuring that the equipment While the production is safe, the work process is more reliable.
·Whether services provided by State Government of Rajasthan is governed by applicability of Notification No 13/2017 CT Rate dated under entry number 5 and whether Vinayak Stone Crusher is taxable person in this case to discharge GST under reverse charge mechanism or whether given service is covered by exclusion clause number 1 of
·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari J — These appeals have been filed by the appellants against a common judgment dated 26th July 2004 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No 1065/2003 Stone Crusher Association Of Rajasthan & Ors and SBCWP No 1066/2002 Rajasthan Half Body Truck Union
It held that the character of Forest Produce is not lost by such crushing of the stone High Court of Uttarakhand has taken a contrary view in its judgment dated in Kumaon Stone Crusher Supra as noted above 63 Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have relied on few judgments of this Court which need to be noticed
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN WRIT C No 30514 of 2016 at Allahabad CASE TITLE M/S Hill Valley Stone Crusher Vs State Of M/S Hill Valley Stone Crusher Vs State Of And 5 Others eLegalix Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System Judgment/Order in Text Format This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information
Also the stone crusher has provided a water fogger system in the premises of the stone crusher During the Committee member s; visit on 08/09/2021 the said stone crusher was not in operation However committee members found that the water sprinkler and
jai balaji stone crusher unit having its registered office at jayashree building shanti colony south vidya nagar hubli dharwad 580 021 6 mr abhinav patil s/o chandrakant patil partner p and a stone crusher unit trade name jai balaji stone crusher unit 7 mr sanket s/o shrinath mugali partner p and a stone crusher
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN WRIT C No 27227 of 2017 at Allahabad CASE TITLE Maa Vindhya Stone Crushing Company And Another Vs State Of Maa Vindhya Stone Crushing Company And Another Vs State Of And 2 Others eLegalix Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System Judgment/Order in Text Format This is an
·IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition M/S No 1767 of 2017 M/S Sidhbali Stone Crusher & othersPetitioners State of Uttarakhand & With Writ Petition M/S No 433 of 2017 Ajeet Stone IndustriesPetitioner Union of India & OthersRespondents Ms Sheetal Advocate holding brief of Mr
·Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S GUNDOJI STONE CRUSHER v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on CaseMine Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S GUNDOJI STONE CRUSHER v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on CaseMine IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY
·Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S SHRIGONDA STONE CRUSHER v MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD on CaseMine ITEM COURT SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No s 7133 7135/2021 M/S SHRIGONDA STONE CRUSHER
·6 The petitioner bought the stone crusher in 1980 from someone else At that time the Environment Protection Act 1986 had not arrived Even the inadequate record in the writ petition reveals that there is no issue that the stone crusher contributes to suspension dust of the air in the vicinity of this industry
·This is the writ petition in substance seeking for extension of time for running stone crusher units up to March 31 2018 on the strength of the amendment to the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act 2011 for short the said Act as amended in 2013
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman District Regulation of Stone Crusher and Licencing Authority
19445/2004 Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01/07/2004 in WP No 1124/2001 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS Petitioner s VERSUS M/S KUMAON STONE CRUSHER Respondent s With appln
The question whether stone crushing activity is a manufacturing process was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petn No 605 of 1998 decided on 26th March 1999 titled Panth Stone Crusher v
Jammu & Kashmir High Court M/S Jk Stone Crusher vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 4 June 2021 One of the principles of natural justice the principle of audi alteram partem has been explained by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments handed down by the Supreme Court from time to time Mohinder Singh Gill v Election Commission of India 1978
in the high court of andhra pradesh amaravati hon ble mr justice arup kumar goswami chief justice & hon ble mr justice c praveen kumar writ petition of 2021
crushing of the stone High Court of Uttarakhand has taken a contrary view in its judgment dated in Kumaon Stone Crusher Supra as noted above 62 Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have relied on few judgments of this Court which need to be noticed Reliance is placed on Two Judge Bench in
JUDGMENT Mr Adarsh Bhagat GA for R 1 1 The petitioners claim to be involved in the business of stone crushing under the valid permission granted by the authorities concerned and are aggrieved of the Government order bearing No 1018 JK GAD of 2020 dated whereby the respondent No 1 has accorded sanction to the constitution of a Special Task
The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that they have obtained all necessary consents permissions and licences for the purpose of operating a stone quarry in their property having an extent of Hectors comprised of in Re Sy Nos 496/2A 496/2B and 496/3 of the Parappa Village
·The petitioner relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sree Srinivasa Stone Crusher v State Of 4386 This case relates to the petitioner herein himself
·Petition s for Special Leave to Appeal C No 19445/2004 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01/07/2004 in WP No 1124/2001 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital] With appln s for c/delay in filing counter affidavit and exemption from filing and emplacement as party respondent and modification of Court s
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mahesh Chandra Sharma J — Since all these writ petitions relate to refusal to operate the Stone Crushers in villages Indroli Angrawali and Fatehpur in Tehsil Kaman District Bharatpur under the provisions of Section 21A of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1981 by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board
Get free access to the complete judgment in Maa Vindhya Stone Crushing Company And Another Petitioner v State Of And Others on CaseMine Issue notice to all the added respondent except respondent No 8 returnable on In addition to Court notice the petitioner to serve notice to all the added respondent except respondent No
·Get free access to the complete judgment in Sunrise Stone Crusher Pvt Ltd v State Of And Others on CaseMine Get free access to the complete judgment in Sunrise Stone Crusher Pvt Ltd v State Of It is stated that the Court was informed about the subsequent amendment in 2019 hence this Court vide its judgment dated 15 March
·In this petition the petitioner inter alia seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to collect the tax from the petitioner for private land/road where the stone crusher has been installed and to collect the toll tax as per Section 4 of Levy of Toll Tax Act read with Section 2 i of Levy of Toll Rules from the post where the same
