Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds Restrictions on Import and Allocation of Raw Petroleum Coke

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the restrictions on the import and allocation of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, dismissed the appeal challenging the allocation criteria for RPC and affirmed the concerns raised by the Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) regarding the environmental impact of calcined petroleum coke (CPC) usage.

The case revolved around the import and allocation of RPC, with the EPCA raising serious concerns about the highly polluting nature of this fuel. The EPCA's report, submitted to the court, emphasized the need to control the usage of pet coke in the country, particularly in industries, to mitigate pollution caused by fugitive emissions.

The Supreme Court took note of the EPCA's recommendations, which suggested that the calciner industry should be allowed to import pet coke for use as feedstock rather than fuel, as anode grade pet coke was not readily available in sufficient quantities in the country.

The judgment also highlighted the importance of accurate estimation of import capacities and utilization of RPC. The figures provided by the industry itself were considered, including the capacity mentioned in the Consent to Operate (CTO) issued by the concerned Pollution Control Board. The guidelines for the regulation and monitoring of imported pet coke were also taken into account.

The court observed that the CTO issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board recorded the total capacity of a particular unit, and any increase in capacity after the court's order dated October 9, 2018, would not be considered for allocation purposes. The court emphasized the significance of the CTO as the material document for determining allocation criteria.

The judgment further addressed the interpretation of a public notice issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), which specified the requirement of a State Pollution Control Board certificate indicating the unit's capacity as of October 9, 2018. The court clarified that the certificate from the Pollution Control Board was crucial and that any claims of increased capacity after the specified date would require clearance from the court for consideration in allocation.

The Supreme Court's decision aligns with the government's consistent position that any capacity added after the court's order should not be considered for RPC allocation. The court's dismissal of the appeal affirms the allocation criteria based on the total production capacity as of October 9, 2018, as determined by the court.

Date of Decision: July 3, 2023

M/S. SANVIRA INDUSTRIES   vs RAIN CII CARBON (VIZAG) LTD. & ORS.   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/03-Jul-2023-Sanvira-Industries-Vs-Rain-Carbon.pdf"]

Latest Legal News