M.V. Arunachalam vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Pays/Territoire Inde Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Jan 25, 1991 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal High Court of Madras Siège de la cour Madras Juge Jesuddurai, P. Numéro de référence 1992 CriLJ 188 Langue Anglais Sujet Déchets et substances dangereuses, Questions juridiques Mot clé Déchets solides Gaspillage alimentaire Déchets organiques Élimination de déchets Déchets ménagers Déchets industriels Responsabilité/indemnisation Résumé Originally, M/s.T.I.Cycles of India Ltd., had been incorporated under the indian Companies Act, 1913 (now repealed) and in 1956, the company had decided to change its name as Tube Investments of India Limited. Tube Investiments of India Limited has several manufacturing units under it, under different names such as, T.I.Cycles of India. Tube Products of India, T.I.Miller T.I.Metal Sections, T.I. Cold Forge and so on. The first accused is manufacturing cycles and cycle components. The different units function under the Company Tube Investiments of India Limited. The application for Consent under the Act, made on 24-5-1984 would show the name of the applicant as the General Manager Thinu H.N. Chandrasekaran of T.I. Cycles of India, Abbattur, Madras-53 and the address of the applicant is shown a Tube Investments of India Limited, Ambattur Madras-53. The prosecution is for violation of the conditions subject to which Consent under Section 26 of the Act had been given. The Tube Investments of India Limited is not an accused in the case. Its unit M/s.T.I.Cycles of India is the first accused. Thiru P. Shanmugham, the General manager (Operations) of M/s.T.I.Cycles of India is the third accused. It is on these facts that the petitioner would contend he is the Managing Director of Tube Investiment of India Limited, and cannot be held liable for an offence committed by one of the Units of the Company. In the instant case, it is not clear in whose name the consent has been ultimately granted. It appears that the application it made by the present first accused, but, the same of the applicant is shown as the general Manager of the Tube Investments of India Limited. Whatever that be, even if the consent had been taken in the name of the unit, it would have no significance on the legal issue involved since M/s.T.I.Cycles of India is only an industrial unit of the Company M/s.Tube Investiments of India Limited. Prosecution, therefore, has to be launched only against the company. A formal application for amendment to substitute the name of M/s.Tube Investment Limited in the place of M/s.T.I.Cycles will have to be made by the respondent before the trial Court in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Modi Distillery case (1988 Cri.LJ 1112). It was urged by the petitioner, who is the Managing Director, that the correspondence shows that he was not aware of the alleged dumping of untreated cyanide waste in the canal, resulting in instantaneous death of seven buffaloes and posing a serious environmental hazard to human beings as well. These would be matters which the petitioner will have to establish before the trial Court and avail of the proviso to Section (47(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution), Act, 1974 Act by establishing that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. In the result, it will be open to the respondents to suitably amend the complaint by substituting M/s. Tube Investments of India Limited, the company in the place of its industrial unit, which is the present first accused. Petition is dismissed. Texte intégral COU-156149.pdf Site web www.indiankanoon.org