M/S SHRIGONDA STONE CRUSHER v MAHARASHTRA
Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S SHRIGONDA STONE CRUSHER v MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD on CaseMine
Get free access to the complete judgment in M/S SHRIGONDA STONE CRUSHER v MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD on CaseMine
Appellant Versus Shivalik Stone Crusher Gram Udyog Sammiti & anr Respondents CORAM HON BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present Mr Munish
Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the impugned order of the ld CIT A and remit the matter to the record of the ld CIT A for ITA No
JUSTICE LALIT BATRA Present Mr Malkiat Singh Advocate for the Appellant JASWANT SINGH J 1 The Appellant Partnership firm through instant Appeal under Section 36 of
The appellant who had bought the stone crusher in dispute from Victoria Barbara also filed objection proceedings in RM Miscellaneous Civil Cause No 77 of 1999 to challenge
WA 202 2012 & connected matters 6 Question No iii is answered that a the Division Bench judgment in /2011 State of Madhya Pradesh vs M/s Stuti and
WA 202 2012 & connected matters 6 Question No iii is answered that a the Division Bench judgment in /2011 State of Madhya Pradesh vs M/s Stuti and
JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL JUDGE Appearance For the Petitioner/Appellant s Mr Sr Advocate with Mr Advocate For the
appellant has described the process thus After drilling and blasting the ore in the open pit mine the ore in the form of boulders are transported to the Primary Crusher
WA 202 2012 & connected matters 2 Writ Appeal /2012 Shraddha Stone Appellant Vs Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra
the respondent and took it to a quarry owned by the appellant to process material there for sale [6] On 16 December 2016 the respondent discovered that the
expression "crusher run" and to a lesser extent the expression "coarse river sand" It was common cause between the two expert witnesses Mr Burger and Mr Tanner
Supreme Court Daily Orders M/S Channabasaveshwara Stone Crusher vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September 2019 Bench Rohinton Fali Nariman Surya Kant IN
Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the impugned order of the ld CIT A and remit the matter to the record of the ld CIT A for ITA No
Rep No 05/2021 MaaBhavani Stone Crusher i Appellant submitted application for supply of power on Joint survey was conducted on It took some
JRS Crusher c the appellant is only a purchaser of a property from the 5th 4/10 / respondent in his individual capacity under the Sale Deed dated registered as Document
11 Thus it will be in the interest of justice to permit the appellant petitioner to file a representation vis vis relief to 4 before the respondent The respondent 6
Foreman with the appellant company raised manually a quotation for the purchase of one bowl for a McCulley Crusher The requisition was sent to Phacious Muzembo
She also states that the appellant M/s Balaji Stone Crusher may be permitted to remove their equipment/machinery Learned counsel for respondent nos 1 and 2 namely
WA 202 2012 & connected matters 6 Question No iii is answered that a the Division Bench judgment in /2011 State of Madhya Pradesh vs M/s Stuti and
