Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.67 seconds)
Documents citing M.Nizamuddin vs M/S Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.& Ors on 10 March, 2010

M/S Green Energy Association vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity ... on 21 August, 2019

However after the SERC pronounces the order on the dispute, the Discom will be able to ask for Page 17 of 68 Judgment in Appeal No.106 of 2016 and Appeal No. 65 of 2017 enforcement under Section 142 since it lies within the State Jurisdiction but not the Generator since it lies outside the jurisdiction of the Commission! Such interpretation of Section 142 which leads to such absurd consequences cannot be accepted. If an interpretation of a provision leads to absurdity such interpretation must be rejected and the logical interpretation should be adopted. The same has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nizamuden v. Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 240. 4.16 It is a settled principle of law that the Courts cannot add or subtract words to a statute. The presumption while interpreting is always that the legislature has not used any superfluous words. It is well-settled that the real intention of the legislation must be gathered from the language used. The Courts have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment, in order to avoid any real or imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause. This rule of interpretation has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin & ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 2SCC 577. In the instant matter, the term "any person" has to be read in harmony with the rest of the statute. In both Sections 111 and 121 the legislature has been careful to restrict the right to approach this Tribunal only to "aggrieved person" and "interested party", respectively. Such a requirement has been deliberately omitted in Section 142, which should be interpreted in line of these Page 18 of 68 Judgment in Appeal No.106 of 2016 and Appeal No. 65 of 2017 provisions. This principle has been recognized by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's order dated 17.11.2014 in Petition No. 19 of 2014, a petition filed by the Appellant herein seeking RPO compliance by the Delhi distribution licensees. Thus, while "any person" may not be given such a wide interpretation to make Section 142 a provision for PIL, it cannot have a higher threshold than is required under Section 111 and 121 of EA 2003. 4.17 The State Commission, in its preliminary written submissions dated 03.08.2016, has stated that the State Commission only has jurisdiction over generators situated in the state. Firstly, this argument is erroneous and irrelevant in as much as the present matter pertains to Commission exercising jurisdiction under Section 142 over the licensee/obligated entities in the State. There is no requirement of a 'dispute' under Section 142, in as much as it gives the power to the State Commissions to enforce their orders/regulations. Without prejudice to the aforesaid it is settled law that in the event, if the Distribution Licensee's procurement of power is involved in the State, the State Commission alone will have the jurisdiction under Section 86(1)(f) to adjudicate upon the dispute. The location of the selling party is irrelevant.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Girodhar G.Yadalam vs Commr.Of Wealth Tax on 24 July, 2015

11. Mr. Jain also submitted that the stand of the respondent that only completed buildings are to be brought into the ambit of the word 'has been constructed' is not tenable since completed buildings fall under a different clause i.e. clause (ea)(i). According to him, if that is accepted then in such cases, Section 2 (ea)(v) read with Explanation 1(b) would not be required at all since a completed building is covered independently in Section 2(ea)(i). He, thus, submitted that seen in this context, the expression 'has been constructed' must be read as 'is being constructed' in order to give effect to the legislative intent. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of M. Nizamuden v. 11 Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Others1, wherein it is held that:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Meenava Thathai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar ... vs The Secretary To Government Union Of ... on 30 September, 2020

66. Further, the dictum laid down in the decision reported in M. Nizamudeen Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. & Ors 2010 (4) SCC 240 is not applicable to the facts of this case for the purpose of extending the principle of purposive interpretation, considering the facts of this case. That was dealing with transfer of hazardous substance from ships to the port and the word except in the port area has been interpreted so as to read "in or through" the port areas. There also it was not beyond the port area or outside the port area.
National Green Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document

Meenava Thanthai Meenavar Nala Sangam ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 30 September, 2020

64. Further, the dictum laid down in the decision reported in M. Nizamudeen Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. & Ors 2010 (4) SCC 240 is not applicable to the facts of this case for the purpose of extending the principle of purposive interpretation, considering the facts of this case. That was dealing with transfer of hazardous substance from ships to the port and [52] the word except in the port area has been interpreted so as to read "in or through" the port areas. There also it was not beyond the port area or outside the port area.
National Green Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document

Dr. Pentapati Pullarao vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2021

In M. Nizamudeen vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Others, (2010)4SCC240, issue of transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports in CRZ area in the light of the provisions of CRZ Notification dated 19.02.1991 as amended from time to time was considered. One M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited (in short „Chemplast‟) sought to establish a unit for manufacturing Poly-Vinyl Chloride (in short „PVC‟) at Semmankuppam village, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Phase-II, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu. EC was granted by MoEF on 28.11.2005 subject to certain conditions. For manufacturing PVC one of the raw materials was Vinyl Chloride Monomer (in short „VCM‟) which was not available indigenously and had to be imported from international suppliers. Proponent proposed to install Marine Terminal Facility near the seashore at Chitrapettai Village for receiving and transferring VCM from ships to PVC plant through underground pipeline. This proposal was recommended in favour of proponent by District Coastal Zone Management Committee and considered by Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority (TNSCZMA) recommending to State Government to forward proposal to MoEF for issue of CRZ clearance. Government of Tamil Nadu vide letter dated 09.11.2005 informed National Coastal Zone Management Authority its acceptance of the 288 recommendation made by the TNSCZMA and ultimately MoEF also granted EC on 19.12.2005. Consent under Water Act, 1974 was granted by State PCB on 14.09.2006. Thereafter, proponent made an application dated 06.02.2008 to Executive Engineer, PWD seeking permission for carrying seawater and raw-materials through pipelines laid 3.50 meter below the river bed. Initially, permission was granted by Executive Engineer on 27.02.2008 but within less than a month on 19.03.2008, the said permission was cancelled by Executive engineer on the ground that VCM may cause pollution and health hazard to the public. This order of cancellation was challenged by proponent in High court. Writ Petition was allowed on 18.07.2008 setting aside order cancelling permission dated 19.03.2008. Thereafter, one Shri M. Nizamudeen filed a PIL in Madras High Court challenging order dated 27.02.2008 granting permission by Executive Engineer. He did not challenge EC granted by MoEF on 28.05.2005 and 19.12.2005. High Court dismissed writ petition of Shri M. Nizamudeen vide judgment dated 31.10.2008 and thereafter, appeal came up before Supreme Court. The first question raised before Supreme Court was, whether river Uppanar and its drain at the point where pipeline pass, fall in CRZ tree area and secondly if the first question is answered in affirmative whether pipeline crossing underneath Uppanar would require EC. Another incidental question was whether para 2(ii) of CRZ Notification, 1991 restricts transfer of VCM (hazardous substance) beyond port area to PVC plant through pipelines. Examining CRZ Notification, 1991 along with its amendments dated 29.12.1998 and 21.05.2002, Court observed that the provisions have to be read so as to render them workable and not ineffective, inoperative or redundant. Hence, explaining the expression "in the port areas", court said that it should be read as "in or through the port areas" so that the basic 289 purpose is served effectively and in a workable manner.
National Green Tribunal Cites 201 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Akhil Bhartiya Mangela Samaj Parishad vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board ... on 24 January, 2022

In M. Nizamudeen vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Others, (2010)4SCC240, issue of transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports in CRZ area in the light of the provisions of CRZ Notification dated 19.02.1991 as amended from time to time was considered. One M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited (in short 'Chemplast') sought to establish a unit for manufacturing Poly-Vinyl Chloride (in short 'PVC') at Semmankuppam village, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Phase-II, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu. EC was granted by MoEF on 28.11.2005 subject to certain conditions. For manufacturing PVC one of the raw materials was Vinyl Chloride Monomer (in short 'VCM') which was not available 244 indigenously and had to be imported from international suppliers. Proponent proposed to install Marine Terminal Facility near the seashore at Chitrapettai Village for receiving and transferring VCM from ships to PVC plant through underground pipeline. This proposal was recommended in favour of proponent by District Coastal Zone Management Committee and considered by Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority (TNSCZMA) recommending to State Government to forward proposal to MoEF for issue of CRZ clearance. Government of Tamil Nadu vide letter dated 09.11.2005 informed National Coastal Zone Management Authority its acceptance of the recommendation made by the TNSCZMA and ultimately MoEF also granted EC on 19.12.2005. Consent under Water Act, 1974 was granted by State PCB on 14.09.2006. Thereafter, proponent made an application dated 06.02.2008 to Executive Engineer, PWD seeking permission for carrying seawater and raw-materials through pipelines laid 3.50 meter below the river bed. Initially, permission was granted by Executive Engineer on 27.02.2008 but within less than a month on 19.03.2008, the said permission was cancelled by Executive engineer on the ground that VCM may cause pollution and health hazard to the public. This order of cancellation was challenged by proponent in High court. Writ Petition was allowed on 18.07.2008 setting aside order cancelling permission dated 19.03.2008. Thereafter, one Shri M. Nizamudeen filed a PIL in Madras High Court challenging order dated 27.02.2008 granting permission by Executive Engineer. He did not challenge EC granted by MoEF on 28.05.2005 and 19.12.2005. High Court dismissed writ petition of Shri M. Nizamudeen vide judgment dated 31.10.2008 and thereafter, appeal came up before Supreme Court. The first question raised before Supreme Court was, whether river Uppanar and its drain at the point where 245 pipeline pass, fall in CRZ tree area and secondly if the first question is answered in affirmative whether pipeline crossing underneath Uppanar would require EC. Another incidental question was whether para 2(ii) of CRZ Notification, 1991 restricts transfer of VCM (hazardous substance) beyond port area to PVC plant through pipelines. Examining CRZ Notification, 1991 along with its amendments dated 29.12.1998 and 21.05.2002, Court observed that the provisions have to be read so as to render them workable and not ineffective, inoperative or redundant. Hence, explaining the expression "in the port areas", court said that it should be read as "in or through the port areas" so that the basic purpose is served effectively and in a workable manner.
National Green Tribunal Cites 309 - Cited by 5 - A K Goel - Full Document

M/S.Value Added Futuristic Management vs The Union Of India on 14 July, 2022

Reliance in this regard was placed upon decisions rendered in the cases of 'M. Nizamudeen Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 240 (Para 38) and Pappu Sweets and Bischits Vs. CTT reported in 2004 (178) ELT 48 (SC) (Para 10)' to contend, inter alia, that Section 9(c) would have been applicable against the Petitioner- company if prosecution would have been initiated against the Petitioner which is the declarant being a company, and not against its Directors.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next