Cases ReportedSupreme Court Cases


Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7) and Ss. 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29 and 85(2)(a) — Party autonomy — Emphasis on, under the 1996 Act: The phrase “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” used in various sections, namely, 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29, 31, 85(2)(a), etc. of the 1996 Act indicates that it is open to the parties to agree otherwise than what the statutory provision in question provides for. So if there is such an agreement between the parties on any aspect so permitted by the 1996 Act, the arbitrator shall be bound by the same. [Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. DMRC, (2022) 9 SCC 286]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 41 Rr. 1(3), 5 and Or. 27 R. 8-A — Deposit of decretal amount for maintaining appeal: Instead of depositing entire decretal amount State Government directed to deposit Rs 45,00,000. Thus direction of High Court to deposit entire decretal sum along with interest substituted by direction to deposit Rs 45,00,000. [State of W.B. v. Adonis Engineers Coop. Construction Society Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 319]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 11 and Or. 14 Rr. 1 & 2 — Res judicata: Law clarified regarding plea of res judicata, when may be decided as preliminary issue. Plea of res judicata, held, may in an appropriate case be determined as a preliminary issue when: (a) neither a disputed question of fact, nor, (b) a mixed question of fact and law, has to be adjudicated for resolving it, nor, (c) has there been any material alteration in the fact(s) since the decision in the earlier proceedings was rendered, which would require proof of any such new fact(s). [Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa, (2022) 9 SCC 225]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 25: Transfer petition — Matrimonial disputes: Transfer petition disposed of with order of dissolution of marriage dispensing with 6 month period as stipulated in S. 13-B(2) of the HMA, 1955. [Pooja Bhuneshwar Prasad Sharma v. Ashish Vinaybhai Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 219]

Constitution of India — Arts. 30 and 29 — Religious, linguistic or cultural minorities — Religious, linguistic or cultural group that is majority in one State, which may be in minority in another State: Issues raised such as whether Parliament and State Legislatures have concurrent powers to legislate on matters pertaining to minority communities and to protect their interest in accordance with constitutional guarantees, or, whether Parliament has exclusive power in this regard, held, will be finalised after Central Government has a wide consultation with State Governments and other Stakeholders. [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2022) 9 SCC 261]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Exercise of discretion under S. 439: Considerations, factors and parameters therefor, principles summarised. [Y v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail: Grant of bail without considering gravity of offence and nature of allegations against the respondent-accused, particularly as to the role played by him in the commission of the alleged murder is not justified. Hence, bail quashed. [Nitu Kumar v. Gulveer, (2022) 9 SCC 222]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 7, 5(7) and 5(8) — Limitation period for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP): Recovery certificate issued by DRT, held, amounts to “financial debt” within the meaning of S. 5(8). Consequently, the holder of the recovery certificate would be a financial creditor within the meaning of S. 5(7). Issuance of a recovery certificate by DRT, held, gives rise to a fresh cause of action to the financial creditor to initiate proceedings under S. 7 IBC within three years from the date of the final judgment and decree, and/or within three years from the date of issuance of the recovery certificate issued by DRT. [Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. A. Balakrishnan, (2022) 9 SCC 186]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 or S. 304 and S. 34 [S. 300 Exception 4] — Murder or culpable homicide: Applicability of S. 300 Exception 4, held, directly ruled out in view of the nature of incident as stated by the witnesses and with reference to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, like multiple incise wounds including that on the left frontal region of the skull as also stab wounds on the left side of the chest. Resultantly, conviction recorded under Ss. 302/34, held, justified. [Pillu v. State of M.P., (2022) 9 SCC 283]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302: Sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, when accused is convicted for offence punishable under S. 302 is not permissible, as punishment for murder under S. 302 is death or imprisonment for life and fine. Any punishment less than imprisonment for life under S. 302 would be contrary to S. 302. [State of M.P. v. Nandu, (2022) 9 SCC 184]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 420: Discharge, whether warranted and relevance of bona fides of the accused and intention to cheat, in its determination, explained. [P. Vijay Nataraj v. State, (2022) 9 SCC 280]

Practice and Procedure — Delay/Laches/Limitation — Unexplained delay by Government Department: No sufficient cause of delay, only lethargy on part of Revenue Department is no more acceptable for condoning delay in such an age of computerisation. Such kind of cases have already been categorised by Supreme Court as “certificate cases” filed with only object to obtain a quietus from Supreme Court on ground that nothing could be done because highest Court has dismissed appeal. Such practice and process has already been deprecated by Supreme Court and it was deprecated again. If Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when officers concerned responsible for same, bear consequences. Special leave petition dismissed as time-barred with costs to be recovered from officers responsible for delay in filing special leave petition. [Union of India v. Vishnu Aroma Pouching (P) Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 263]

Practice and Procedure — Delay/Laches/Limitation — Unexplained delay of 502 days by Government Department — “Certificate cases” — No sufficient cause shown: Dismissal of such proceedings as time-barred with direction for recovery of costs/losses suffered by Government from the officials concerned. [State of U.P. v. Sabha Narain, (2022) 9 SCC 266]

Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952 (16 of 1952) — S. 10 — Exemption from payment of passengers tax in terms of Memo dt. 22-9-1970 issued under — Scope of — Purposive interpretation of “school children”: Exemption granted thereunder to educational institutions carrying “school children” from levy of passengers tax cannot be denied in respect of vehicles used for transportation of students going to educational institutions like colleges and universities. Broad expression “children”, held, obviously, refers to students taking instructions in educational institutions, irrespective of their class or standard or level. [State of Haryana v. Daronacharya College of Engg., (2022) 9 SCC 301]

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 — Ss. 18-A, 29 and 38-O(1)(g) r/w S. 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — Protection to sanctuaries — Wildlife clearance — Doubling of railway line: In this case, Ministry of Railways failed to provide any substantial basis for requirement of doubling railway line by addressing its impact on habitat and damage that it would cause to environment. Therefore, conclusion of CEC upheld, and approval granted by Standing Committee of NBWL for doubling railway line between Castlerock to Kulem, revoked. [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2022) 9 SCC 306]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee*and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., held that although to protect future generations and to ensure sustainable development, it is imperative that pollution laws be strictly enforced, were the adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto approval of Environment Clearance outweigh the consequences of regularization of operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and the establishment concerned otherwise conforms to the requisite pollution norms, ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law, in strict conformity with the applicable Rules, Regulations and/or Notifications.

Question of Law

The question of law to be answered was that whether an establishment employing about 8000 workers, which has been set up pursuant to Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the concerned statutory authority and has applied for ex post facto EC can be closed down pending issuance of Environmental Clearance (EC), even though it may not cause pollution and/or may be found to comply with the required pollution norms.

Grievance of the Appellants

The Appellants carry on business, inter alia, of manufacture and sale of basic organic chemicals, namely, Formaldehyde. The manufacturing units fell in the category of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) as defined under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

It was the case of the Appellants that they were under bona fide impression that EC was not required for setting up units which manufactured Formaldehyde. Even the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) itself was not sure of whether EC was required for such units. The appellants contended that on the basis of CTE granted by HSPCB, they had set up their units taking huge loans from banks for which repayments had to be paid in installments.

Impugned Order of NGT

Considering that the HSPCB itself was under the misconception that prior EC was not necessary for units of the Appellants, Department of Environment and Climate Change of the Government of Haryana had took a policy decision dated 10-11-2020 to allow the units which did not have prior EC to operate for six months, on condition that they would apply for EC within sixty days. Pursuant to which a Non-Governmental Organisation,  “Dastak” filed an application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) challenging the order dated 10-11-2020 passed by the State of Haryana. The NGT held that establishments which did not have prior Environmental Clearance (EC) could not be allowed to operate.

Related Notifications

Noticeably, the Central Government issued a notification being S.O. 804(E) dated 14-03-2017 providing for grant of ex post facto EC for project proponents who had commenced, continued or completed a project without obtaining EC. Further, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a draft notification for dealing with cases of violation of the notification with regard to EC. It was proposed that cases of violation would be appraised by the Appraisal Committee with a view to assess whether the project had been constructed or operated at a site which was permissible under prevailing laws and could be run sustainably on compliance of environmental norms with adequate environmental safeguards. Closure was to be recommended if the findings of the Appraisal Committee were in the negative. If the Appraisal Committee found that such unit had been running sustainably upon compliance of environmental norms with adequate environment safeguards, the unit would be prescribed appropriate Terms of Reference (TOR) after which the procedure for grant of EC would follow.

Factual Analysis

The Appellants duly applied for EC in respect of their manufacturing units and the Expert

Appraisal Committee, after scrutinizing their applications and finding the units suitable for grant of EC in terms of the prevailing guidelines, conducted a public hearing to finalize the cases of the Appellants for issuance of Terms of Reference. Hence, the Bench noted that ToR was already granted, a public hearing had been conducted and only the last procedural step of issuance of EC was left. The Bench observed:

  • The units of the Appellants were totally non-polluting units having “Zero Trade discharge”.
  • They had been in operation for many years in good faith with valid CTOs granted by the HSPCB.
  • The units were not causing pollution hazards. The only thing against the units was the procedural lapse of not obtaining EC.
  • The manufacturing units of the Appellants appoint about 8,000 employees and have a huge annual turnover.

The Bench held that the requirement to obtain EC is non-negotiable and EC is granted on condition of the suitability of the site to set up the unit, from the environmental angle, and also existence of necessary infrastructural facilities and equipment for compliance of environmental norms. However, the Bench stated,

“An establishment contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood ought not to be closed down only on the ground of the technical irregularity of not obtaining prior Environmental Clearance irrespective of whether or not the unit actually causes pollution.

Validity of Ex-post Facto Environmental Clearance

The Bench clarified that although it had been held in Electrosteel Steels Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC online SC 1247, that ex post facto Environmental Clearance should not ordinarily be granted, and certainly not for the asking, however the same cannot be declined with pedantic rigidity, oblivious of the consequences of stopping the operation of mines, running factories and plants; particularly when the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance.

Holding that the grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance with, or can be made to comply with environment norms is not impermissible, the Bench remarked,

“The Court cannot be oblivious to the economy or the need to protect the livelihood of hundreds of employees and others employed in the project and others dependent on the project, if such projects comply with environmental norms.”

However, the Bench added that under no circumstances can industries, which pollute, be allowed to operate unchecked and degrade the environment, therefore, ex post facto environmental clearance should not be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances taking into account all relevant environmental factors.


In the light of the above, the Bench directed the government to decide applications of the Appellants for EC in accordance with law within one month and that pending decision, the operation of the manufacturing units, in respect of which consents had been granted and even public hearing held, should not be interfered with. The appeal was allowed and the impugned decision was set aside.

[Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 362, decided on 25-03-2022]

*Judgment by: Justice Indira Banerjee

Appearance by:

For the Appellants: Advocate Tarun Gupta

For the Respondents: Surender Singh Hooda[R-1], Sanjay Kumar Visen[R-9] and Gurmeet Singh Makker[R-11]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Green Tribunal (Central Zone Bench): While addressing the issue of pressure/air horns and motor vehicles being driven with intolerable sound in Rajasthan, the Bench comprising of Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma (Expert Member) found the State of Rajasthan in contempt of the Supreme Court’s order and issued notice to the state government to reply within three weeks.

The applicant had approached the Tribunal with a social cause pertaining to failure of the State to ensure effective implementation of laws related to noise pollution. To point out the deplorable state of affairs on the rampant noise pollution in the State which majorly emanates from vehicles either through incessant use of horns and modified exhausts, the applicants had submitted various State recorded data, environmental and motor laws and recent news reports before the Tribunal.

The applicant submitted that as per Rule 3(3) of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 formed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, respective State Governments are responsible for abatement of noise radiating from vehicular exhausts and horns and to ensure that, Ambient Air Quality Standards, scheduled under the Rules are realized.

Further, the applicant contended, even otherwise State inaction on such crucial issue culminated to contempt of Court as there was non-compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (2015) 4 SCC 801, wherein while dealing with the issue of rampant and unchecked noise pollution in the State of Rajasthan, in particular with respect to State capital i.e., Jaipur, the Court had directed compliance of its earlier judgment in, Noise Pollution – Implementation of the Laws for restricting use of loudspeakers and high volume producing sound systems; In re, (2005) 5 SCC 733, wherein State Governments were directed to ensure the following:

  1. Limit noise sources to 10 dB(A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB(A), whichever is lower; and
  2. Prohibit use of horn during night (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) in residential areas except in exceptional circumstances; and

iii. Make provision for seizure and confiscation of any noise source creating noise beyond the permissible limits.

The issue had also been addressed by the National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), in Hardeep Singh v. South Delhi Municipal Corpn., O.A. No. 519/2016 (P.B.), wherein directions were issued to Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to devise the scale of compensation on the basis of ‘Polluter Pays’ principle to curb the menace of noise pollution and ensure implementation of the mandate and spirit of Rules. Resultantly, the CPCB had issued a directive that in the event of violation of Rules, imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and seizure of polluting source will be undertaken. Pertinently, a nationwide directive dated 27/04/2021 was also issued to all the State P.C.B. to implement and ensure compliance of ‘Scales of Compensation’ with immediate effect on receipt of the directive.

Relying on the fact that the direction on pan India level had already been issued by Principal Bench of NGT in Hardeep Singh’s case, the found the State in contempt and directed to comply and follow the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, NGT (Principle Bench) as well as by the CPCB for monitoring and controlling the noise pollution. [Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, Original Application No.79 of 2021, decided on 12-01-2022]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance by:

For the Applicants: Bhaskar Agarwal, Advocate with Tarun Agarwal, Advocate

For Respondent(s): Shoeb Hasan Khan, Advocate with Rohit Sharma, Advocate