Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: nuisance Page 1 of about 13,263 results (0.005 seconds)

Jul 18 2005 (SC)

In Re: Noise Pollution - Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Us ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC3136; 2005(3)AWC2685(SC); 2005(5)BomCR553; 121(2005)DLT547(SC); [2005(4)JCR4(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC210; (2005)5SCC733

..... loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under the madras town nuisances act, 1889 and also the noise pollution (regulation and control) rules, 2000 are required to be enforced.'121. in charan lal sahu v. union of india : ..... or the conduct of business. under the ordinance, it is unlawful to create a noise disturbance anywhere during 'quiet hours,' including multi- family buildings and townhouses. the 'nuisance provision' prohibits some noise disturbances anywhere at any time.96. the montgomery county noise control ordinance promotes peace and quiet for everyone by covering a wide variety of residential and ..... advertisement and entertainment, trade or business. control on pollution act of 1974, contains provisions for controlling noise pollution and it provides noise to be actionable must amount to nuisance in the ordinary legal sense. section 62 of the english control of pollution act, 1974, operates as perfect control for 'street noise'. this provision has been defined ..... the 'be safe not sorry' campaign was launched after the post was inundated with letters from readers to the newspaper saying they were fed up with the noise, nuisance and the distress that fireworks cause. vmethodology adopted in other countries for noise pollutioncontrol.63. different countries of the world have enacted different legislations to control the noise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 2000 (SC)

Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfar ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2000SC2773; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)626; 2000(5)ALT22(SC); 2001(49)BLJR806; 2000CriLJ4022; JT2000(9)SC575; 2000(3)KLT651(SC); 2000(6)SCALE163; (2000)7SCC282; [2000]Supp3SCR15; 20

..... amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under (the madras town nuisance act. 1889 and also the noise pollution (regulation and control) rules, 2000 arc required to be enforced. we would mention that even though the rules are unambiguous, there is ..... down in appa rao's case decided by the division bench of the same high court on the basis of the madras city police act, 1888 and the madras towns nuisance act, 1889. it is also in conformity with the noise pollution (regulation and control) rules, 2000 framed by the central government under the provisions of the environment (protection) ..... as 'the board') slating therein that prayers in the church were recited by using loudspeakers, drums and other sound producing instruments which caused noise pollution thereby disturbing and causing nuisance to the normal day life of the residents of the said colony. complaints were also made to the superintendent of police and the inspector of police-respondents nos. 5 & ..... on his studies without their being any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours. similarly, old and inform are entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness during their leisure hours without there being any nuisance of noise pollution. aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances as well as children upto 6 years of age are considered to be very sensible to noise. their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2002 (HC)

Savla and Associates Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR2003Delhi73; 2003(67)DRJ268

..... beating of drums or by use of voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, thereforee, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions and voice amplifiers framed under the madras town nuisance act, 1889 and also the noise pollution (regulation and control) rules, 2000 are required to be enforced.we would mentioned that even though the rules are unambiguous, there is lack ..... ' overhauling of cars, denting, painting/repairing. the process of doing these works creates an unbearable and disturbing noise. the activity carried out by the mechanics is highly hazardous and creates nuisance to the associates working with the petitioner as well as to various other offices situated in the locality. the mechanics also park their vehicles which they have undertaken to repair ..... has brought the problem created by some car mechanics who were operating from the pavements/road in the close vicinity of the office premises of the petitioner and thereby causing nuisance. it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is a proprietary firm carrying on profession of advocates & solicitors. its office is situated in the building facing the main .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2001 (HC)

Sayeed Maqsood Ali Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2001MP220; 2001(3)MPHT459; 2001(2)MPLJ605

..... , loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules of the use of loud-speakers and voice amplifiers framed under the madras town nuisance act, 1889 and also the noise pollution (regulation and control) rules, 2000 are required to be enforced. we would mention that even though the rules are unambiguous, there is a ..... of respondent no. 7 there is noise pollution and the petitioner's health is affected and though he has submitted various complaints and approached the authorities for stopping the said nuisance it has fallen in deaf ears. it has been setforth that section 30 of the police act, 1861 confers powers on the authorities to take appropriate action against such persons .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2010 (HC)

L. Ravindran Vs. the Commissioner of Police,

Court : Chennai

..... , criminal procedure code.(c) persons who have been convicted under section 75 of the madras city police act or twice in two consecutive years under section 3 clause 12 of the town nuisance act.(d) persons who are illicit distillers and known purveyors of liquor.(g.o.ms. no. 3461, home, 10th dec. 1956)persons either convicted under section 49-a of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1950 (HC)

In Re: K.J. Verghese

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad789; (1950)IIMLJ199

ordersomasundaram, j.1. the petitioner has been found guilty by the stationary sub-magistrate, coonoor, for an offence under section 3(12), madras towns nuisance act and sentenced to a fine of rs. 20.2. section 3 (12) deals with disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public place. the indecent behaviour that is attributed to the petitioner who is a municipal councillor is that while going on a public road he uttered in loud tones the following words:'it appears some fellow--let his mother and wife be ravished--informed the sub-inspector that bahadur khan (referring to the second accused) should be arrested. can they--fellows who ravish mothers--pluck a hair.' the question now is whether this will constitute indecent behaviour.3. it is contended by mr. kasturi that it is at best only abusive or indecent words uttered and this does not constitute behaviour. the term 'behaviour' is not defined. but the oxford dictionary gives the meaning as deportment or manners. uttering these words in public undoubtedly is bad manners and though it may constitute bad behaviour, it is doubtful if it is indecent behaviour within the meaning of that term in clause (12) of section 3. in my opinion the question is not free from doubt and the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused.4. the conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted. the fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 2005 (HC)

Smt. Sudhamayee Acharjya and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT110

..... hotel is made strictly in accordance with the plan approved by the authority and the opp. party no. 1 should also take all necessary steps to prevent any sort of nuisance being caused by establishment of the said hotel to the residential area or its inhabitants.13. with the above observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of.s.b ..... . act, make specific provision for construction of hotel in the residential use zone provided, of course, the said construction of hotel will not be permitted to cause any sort of nuisance to the residential area.12. considering the submissions made and the provisions of the relevant act and the regulations, we are of the view that the prayer of the petitioners ..... for construction of hotel on 'first come first serve basis' provided sufficient set back is left as per the o.d.a. act and building regulations so as to prevent nuisance to the residential area.10. in the case of bangalore medical trust (supra) the supreme court while dealing with conversion of public park into a private nursing home and the ..... , cultural and 4. hotels, hospitals andneighbourhood, sanatoria not treatingrecreational insti- contagious diseasestutions with mental patients, if set adequate parking back and coveragefacilities. of plots are such as not to constitute nuisance to the residential area.5. public utilities and 5. colleges and researchpublic buildings. institutions of non-commercial nature, if the building is located at a distance of not less than .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1971 (HC)

Naorem Leikham Singh and ors. Vs. the State and anr.

Court : Guwahati

..... same sub-section, viz... 'before proceeding under section 137 or section 138'. which clearly means that the inquiry respecting the merits of the alleged obstruction or nuisance is to be deferred until a decision has been recorded on the denial of public right. the matter is further clarified by sub-section (2) which ..... learned sessions judge. sub-section (1) of section 139-a provides that where an order is made under section 133 for the purpose of preventing obstruction, nuisance or danger to the public in the use of any way. river. channel or place, the magistrate shall, on the appearance before him of the ..... 'mobile stalls have been constructed by the ops. within the kakching bazar area which is a notified area and that their stalls have caused obstruction, nuisance and annoyance to the public and that they should be removed.' he allowed time until 26th of september 1970 to the petitioners for carrying out the ..... to be led in respect of the denial of the public right made by the petitioners or whether on the merits of the alleged obstruction or nuisance. no evidence could however be recorded on 13-11-1969. nor on another four dates to which the proceedings were adjourned from time to time. ..... at the instance of kh. ibobi singh, the respondent no. 2 of this revision petition, the police made an enquiry into his allegation of obstruction or nuisance caused to a path-way in kakchine bazar area by the petitioners herein, and then made a report on 6-3-1968 to the sub divisional magistrate. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 2006 (HC)

Kanigalla Venkata Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Vice-chairman, Vgtm Urban Dev ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(5)ALD442; 2006(5)ALT361

..... , 1955 and the air (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1981, rejected challenge observing thus.from the aforementioned provision, it is clear that a licence can be cancelled for creating nuisance. in terms of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india, the right to carry on business or trade is subject to any restriction that may be imposed by ..... , multipurpose or irrigated machinery tenemental dwelling or flat or junior technical schools, not farms, sewage detached houses, swimming pool, giving rise to smoke noise, or farms.boarding houses, bachelor other nuisance, auditoria,quarters, hotels, bachelor quarters, public assembly halls, sports hotels, clubs and cultural and stadia, transient visitors philanthropic associations of non- camp, taxi and scooters stand, commercial nature, professional bus ..... grounds and play fields, libraries, use clearly incidental to purpose of develop-gardens, plant nurseries and residential use which will not ment of the area customary home occupations and create nuisance or hazard, commercial enter-cottage industries not involving temples, mosques and other tainment like touring the use or installation of any religious buildings, municipal, in cinemas, circus machinery driven by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1909 (PC)

The Advocate-general of Bombay Vs. Haji Ismail Hasham

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR274

..... to the public. that is a point with which i am not very much concerned at present, though it. approaches very closely cases which i have classified as merely constructive nuisances or nuisances in law. in the course of his judgment, fry j. quoted the observations of lord romilly m. r. in attorney-general v. oxford, worcester and wolver-hampton railway ..... and the statute provides a complete remedy. i believe in all such cases that the attorney-genera] in england would leave the local authority to deal with the constructive public nuisance.34. against that, plaintiff has argued that all these remedial powers conferred upon the commissioner are entirely discretionary and that if the commissioner refuses to exercise them, the public are ..... generally.' he continues; ''again, in attorney-general v. cockermouth local board (1874) l.r. 18 the bill, because he came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of any nuisance resulting to the plaintiffs from the defendants' acts. nevertheless, at the instance of the attorney-general, he granted an injunction to restrain the defendants from polluting the water of the ..... many instances in which the attorney-general had intervened successfully in england which could only be by an excessive straining of language, almost to the verge of metaphor, called public nuisances. such, for example, as monopolies and compelling companies to keep within the terms of their special acts. in the present case the advocate-general, arrogating all the powers of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //