Cases

Pro Public v. Godavari Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Pro Public v. Godavari Marble Industries, 068–WO–0082 (April 15, 2016)
Supreme Court of Nepal

Over a 20 year period, advocate Prakash Mani Sharma and the NGO Pro Public pursued public interest litigation to close a marble mine in the Godavari hills outside Kathmandu, Nepal.  The Godavari area is described as a “living museum” of cultural and biological significance and has been negatively impacted by the mining operations.

In the Matter of the Further Investigation into Environmental and Socioeconomic Costs (MN)

In the Matter of the Further Investigation into Environmental and Socioeconomic Costs Under Minnesota Statutes Section 216B.2422, Subdivision 3, OAH 80-2500-31888, MPUC E-999/CI-14-643, Minn. Office of Admin. Hearings.

 

[Note: This decision is only a recommendation that the MPUC is not obligated to follow.]

 

Jam v. International Finance Corporation, No.15-612 (D.D.C. 2016) (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) (International Finance Corp. immune from suit)

Jam v. International Finance Corporation, No. 15-612 (D.D.C. 2016) 
A U.S. District Court dismissed a case filed against the International Finance Corporation (IFC) concerning the IFC's financing of the Tata Mundra iltra-mega coal-fired power plant in India on the ground that the IFC is immune from suit.  

Click on the link to access of .pdf of the decision. 

Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India

Save Mon Region Federation v. Union of India, Appeal No. 39 of 2012
National Green Tribunal (April 7, 2016)

The Save Mon Region Federation, on behalf of the Monpa indigenous community, challenged the environmental clearance granted for the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Naymjang Chhu River.  The Federation pointed to faults in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure and a lack of close scrutiny of the project by the expert appraisal committee (EAC).

Greenpeace India Society v. Union of India

Greenpeace India Society v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 5749/2014 (January 20, 2015)
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Greenpeace India challenged directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs blocking Greenpeace India’s access to funds transferred to it from foreign donors through legitimate banking channels.  Greenpeace India established that it was properly registered under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) and regularly filed necessary returns with the Ministry of Home Affairs. 

Pages

Subscribe to Cases