Justice Misra - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that Pollution Control Boards can impose restitutionary and compensatory damages, including ex-ante bank guarantees, under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts. This power is distinct from punitive penalties and is grounded in the 'Polluter Pays' principle to remediate environmental damage. Facts Of The Case: The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) issued show cause notices in 2006 to multiple entities, including residential and commercial complexes, for operating without the mandatory "consent to establish" and "consent to operate" under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. As a condition for granting consent, the DPCC demanded the payment of fixed sums a...

The Supreme Court held that Clause 13 of the contract, which stated disputes "may be sought through arbitration," did not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The use of "may" indicated no mandatory intent to arbitrate, requiring further mutual consent. The Court emphasized that an arbitration agreement must reflect a clear, unequivocal commitment to resolve disputes through arbitration, excluding domestic courts. Mere enabling language without obligation is insufficient. The High Court’s dismissal of the arbitration application was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between BGM & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) (Appellant) and Eastern Coalfields Limited (Respondent) over a contract for transportation/handling of goods. T...

Tag: Justice Misra

No Arbitration Without Clear Agreement: When Does a Dispute Clause Become Binding? Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Explained