Bar & Bench News Network
The Bombay High Court has stayed the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) direction to Lavasa Corporation to stop construction at the proposed hill station in Pune district reports the Hindu. The Court has directed the Ministry to give the corporation a hearing on whether it could have stayed the construction at Lavasa, without giving a prior hearing.
The petition challenges the MoEF’s show-cause notice sent to Lavasa stating that necessary permissions were not obtained by them before beginning construction.
The MoEF is being represented by Additional Solicitor General Darius Khambatta before the High Court while Lavasa is being represented by Senior Counsel Shekhar Naphade.
According to media reports, Lavasa’s Counsel stated a voluntary statement in the Court and said, “No construction will be carried out till December 16”.
Yesterday, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court recused himself from hearing the Lavasa’s petition. The High Court Bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice S.J. Kathawala were assigned to hear the case. Chief Justice Mohit Shah recused himself stating one of his relatives is working in the law firm that is advising Lavasa, in its IPO.
Amarchand Mangaldas had advised Lavasa in its IPO filing before SEBI in September.
Lavasa in its reply to the show cause notice sent by the MoEF has denied each and every allegation made by the Ministry. Lavasa had engaged Agarwal Law Associates to send out a 35 page reply to the MoEF drafted by its Partner Rishi Agrawala.
The Lavasa petition has now been placed before Justices D.K. Deshmukh and N.D. Deshpande and the next date of hearing is set for December 16th. The Court has also directed the MoEF to give a hearing to the NGO National Alliance of People’s Movement which had initially complained against the Lavasa project.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- Justice Mohit S. Shah to be elevated as Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court
- Chief Justice appointed at the Jharkhand High Court
- Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court P. D. Dinakaran resigns
- Bombay High Court admits appeal against Shah Rukh Khan
- Jet files petition in Bombay High Court, NAG files petition in Chennai High Court
- 14-year epic battle draws to a close as Bombay High court rules against liaison offices for foreign firms
- Nimesh Kampani can finally return to India as AP High Court stays criminal proceedings
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (2)










