<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (5) TMI 727 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304710</link>
    <description>Environmental disputes involving a substantial question relating to environment fall within the National Green Tribunal&#039;s domain, and once the Tribunal is established, civil court jurisdiction is barred under the NGT Act for matters it can determine. The suit challenging a proposed solid waste project was therefore not maintainable before the civil court. A permanent injunction simpliciter based only on apprehended nuisance also failed, because a quia timet claim requires an imminent, reasonably certain, and serious injury, which was not shown. Injunction was additionally barred where nuisance was not clearly established and where an equally efficacious statutory remedy was available under the Specific Relief Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 17:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=693408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 727 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304710</link>
      <description>Environmental disputes involving a substantial question relating to environment fall within the National Green Tribunal&#039;s domain, and once the Tribunal is established, civil court jurisdiction is barred under the NGT Act for matters it can determine. The suit challenging a proposed solid waste project was therefore not maintainable before the civil court. A permanent injunction simpliciter based only on apprehended nuisance also failed, because a quia timet claim requires an imminent, reasonably certain, and serious injury, which was not shown. Injunction was additionally barred where nuisance was not clearly established and where an equally efficacious statutory remedy was available under the Specific Relief Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>