Skip to main content

Oleum Gas Leak Case

 Oleum Gas Leak Case

The Case of the Oleum Gas Leak: The Fertilizer Factory was located in Kirti Nagar. Their products included hard technical oil and glycerin soaps, which they manufactured in Delhi, which is a densely-populated area.

M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition against the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphur Acid plant, requesting that it be closed and relocated because it was posing a serious threat to the public health. In contrast, the Supreme Court did not take the matter seriously and permitted the parties to continue their work while the case remained on hold. The court did not reach a final decision in this case.

On the 4th of December, 1985. The company experienced an oil gas leak from one of its units, causing significant damage to the surrounding community and resulting in a major disaster. An attorney who practised in the Tis Hazari Courts, according to the solicitor, died as a result of Oleum gas inhalation. The spillage occurred as a result of the failure of the design upon which it was constructed, and it caused fear among the residents who lived nearby. Within two days, another spillage occurred, though this time a minor one, due to the escape of oleum gas from one of the line's joints. Following this, the Delhi Legislative Guide and Counsel Load up and the Delhi Bar Association recorded cases for restitution on behalf of individuals who had endured harm as a result of the escape of oleum gas from a line's joints.

As a result of these two interruptions, the Delhi organisations immediately responded by issuing an order on December 6, 1985, by the Delhi Officer, in accordance with Section 133 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordering Shriram to cease control of the assembly and preparation of hazardous and lethal synthetic substances and gases, such as chlorine, Oleum, Super chlorine, phosphate, and so forth, at their office in Delhi and to eliminate such synthetic compounds from the country.

A larger seat should be assigned to the case, the High Court determined, because the inquiries raised concern significant legal issues relating to the interpretation of Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution. In order to determine whether a writ of habeas corpus related to pay could be granted. The court had to figure out what Article 32 was all about. According to Article 21 of the Privately Owned Businesses Act, which establishes the option to ensure life and opportunity for all, Additionally, it was to be deciphered as being essential in the public's best interests as well.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree