Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Alok Aradhe, Sandeep V.Marne
Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. environmental concerns in the construction project. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. historical development and consultancy reports. (Para 5 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. arguments against the project and location choice. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. arguments focused on the environmental impact and regulatory compliance. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 5. regulatory aspects and noc clarifications. (Para 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 6. judicial review standards on environmental projects. (Para 43 , 44 , 46) |
| 7. legal framework justifies the project's approval based on safety considerations. (Para 54) |
| 8. precautionary principles in environmental law. (Para 66 , 68 , 70) |
| 9. non-disclosure of previous studies and impacts. (Para 71 , 84 , 90) |
| 10. judicial review respects expert authority in environmental approvals. (Para 72) |
| 11. final considerations for project approval. (Para 94 , 105 , 106) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, CJ.
INDEX
| Sr. No. | Heading | |
| I | The Project | |
| II | Challenge | |
| III | Background Facts | |
| (a) The first report | ||
| (b) The second report | ||
| (c) The third Report | ||
| (d) The Approvals/Clearances | ||
| SUBMISSIONS: | ||
| IV | On behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.13336 of 2025 | |
| V | On behalf of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No./14795/2025 | |
| VI | On behalf of petitioners in Wr | |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
