Skip to main content

Private company fined for environmental issue

The Principal bench of the National Green tribunal (NGT) today directed Delta Marine Shipping Company (Delta Shipping Marine Services SA and sister concerns) and Adani Enterprises Ltd. to pay Rs 100 crore and Rs 5 crore respectively as compensation for causing damage to the marine environment.

The bench, headed by Chairperson Swatanter Kumar made the determination on an application made by Mumbai resident, Samir Mehta for environmental pollution caused by the sinking of Delta carrier MV RAK around 20 nautical miles of the coast of Mumbai while carrying over 60054 metric tonnes of coal for Adani in 2011.

The vessel also contained around 290 tonnes of fuel oil and 50 tonnes of diesel, on its voyage from Indonesia to Dahej in Gujarat, but sank before reaching its destination causing an oil spill spreading across the Maharashtra coastline from Mumbai to Raigad, affecting both human and maritime life.

During the course of the proceedings, Delta took the stand that the damages were liable to be paid by the insurance company Astra Asigurari Insurance, amidst other defenses. The tribunal negated this stance through the interpretation of various local and international laws on the topic and adjudicated a sum of Rs 100 crore as compensation payable by the company.

This is the second time this year that the Tribunal had held private companies responsible for environmental/natural disaster. Earlier this year, the Tribunal had ordered Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd., a hydroelectric power company, to pay Rs 9 crore as compensation to people affected by Uttarakhand floods in 2013 because the dam constructed by the company contributed to the flooding experienced by residents of the region.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more