Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

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