Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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