regulatory compliance - The Legal Chamber

Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board

The Supreme Court held that the electricity board was estopped from resiling from its contractual obligation to provide a concessional tariff after having sanctioned, agreed, and partially implemented it. The board's unilateral withdrawal of the concession after over two years was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an existing industrial unit with a Low Tension (LT) power connection, underwent significant expansion by installing a large induction furnace, which necessitated a High Tension (HT) or bulk power supply. It applied for this new connection in 1998. The respondent electricity board, after inspection, sanctioned the HT connection via a memo that explicitly stipulated the appellant’s eligibility for a 25% concessional tarif...

Supreme Court Protects Bank Officer’s Pension Rights: Mandates Board Consultation for Deductions

11Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects Bank Officer’s Pension Rights: Mandates Board Consultation for Deductions

The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, prior consultation with the Board of Directors is mandatory before reducing the pension of a compulsorily retired employee below the full admissible amount. The Court emphasized that pension is a constitutional right under Article 300A and cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to procedural safeguards. The word "may" in Regulation 33(1) does not grant discretion to reduce pension below two-thirds of the full amount but clarifies eligibility. The judgment clarified that clauses (1) and (2) of Regulation 33 must be read harmoniously, and any reduction in pension requires prior Board consultation, rendering post-facto approval insufficient. The High Court's interpretatio...

Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals

12Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging demand notices for depositing 10% of the total bid amount with the District Mineral Foundation (DMF). The Court held that Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is inapplicable to minor minerals due to Section 14. The State Government is empowered under Section 15A to fix the amount payable to the DMF for minor minerals. The Court found the demand consistent with statutory provisions and the 2017 Rules Facts Of The Case: Chandra Bhan Singh, a successful bidder for mining minor minerals (sand), was allotted a tender. In line with the Policy decision dated April 22, 2017, the Appellant was required to deposit an amount of ₹54,12,960/-, representing 10% of the total bid amount of ₹5,41,29,600/-, to the Dis...

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals

26May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Environmental Laws: Prior Clearance Must for Projects, No Retrospective Approvals

The Supreme Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) violate environmental jurisprudence and are alien to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification, 2006. Stressing the precautionary principle and Article 21 (right to a pollution-free environment), the Court struck down the 2017 notification and 2021 OM permitting retrospective ECs, holding them arbitrary and illegal. It reiterated that prior EC is mandatory, and no regularization of violations is permissible, aligning with its earlier judgments in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals. The Court barred future exemptions but spared already granted ECs. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple writ petitions and a civil appeal challenging the legality of the 2017 notification and 2021 ...