INDUSTRIAL LAWS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA OLEUM GAS LEAK

FACTS OF THE CASE :-
M.C Mehta case started as an outcome of the oleum gas spill from Shriram Food and manures ltd. Complex at
Delhi.

It sets out the rule of total obligation in which the individual without being blameworthy of the wrongdoing
perpetrated can likewise be sued for the wrongdoing.

On December 1985 a lot of oil spilled from the plant in the heart of the city bringing about a few harms to
individuals and furthermore a few passings

A couple days after the fact again there was an oleum gas spill from a similar plant.

On 6thDecember 1985, the District Magistrate,Delhi requested Shriram to stop the assembling and handling of
dangerous chemicals and composts at their foundation in Delhi and to expel such chemicals and gasses from
Delhi.At this specific point, M.C. Mehta moved to Supreme Court to record PIL and case for pay for the
misfortunes brought about and furthermore requested that the shut foundation ought not restart.

ISSUE:

Regardless of whether article 21 was accessible against Shriram and whether Shriram claimed by Delhi fabric
Mlls ltd. Open co. Comes surprisingly close to state under the article 12?

The Supreme Court held that Shriram is required to acquire a permit under the Factories Act and is liable to the
bearings and requests of the experts under the Act. It is additionally required to acquire a permit for its
assembling exercises from the Municipal experts under the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957. It is liable to broad
condition direction under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and as the manufacturing
plant is arranged in an air contamination control zone, it is likewise subject to the direction of the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The reality of the matter is that control is not practiced by the Government in
connection to the inward administration approaches of the Company.

Their CEO expressed that the venture must be held to be under a commitment to give that the unsafe or naturally
risky action in which it is locked in must be directed with the most noteworthy benchmarks of wellbeing and if any
damage comes about by virtue of such action, the endeavor must be completely subject to make up for such
mischief and it ought to be no response to the undertaking to state that it had taken all sensible care and that the
mischief happened with no carelessness on its part. Since the people hurt by virtue of the perilous or naturally
unsafe action carried on by the undertaking would not be in a position to seclude the procedure of operation from
the risky readiness of substance or some other related component that brought on the mischief the venture must
be held entirely at risk for bringing on such damage as a piece of the social cost for carrying on the risky or
inalienably hazardous movement.

It manages the guideline of outright obligation. Outright risk is a guideline of strict obligation with no special case.
In a wrongdoing of supreme risk, a misstep of reality is not a resistance. Strict or Absolute Liability-likewise can
emerge from inalienably unsafe exercises or inadequate items that are probably going to bring about a mischief
to another, paying little mind to security taken. Carelessness is not required to be demonstrated. Illustration:
Owning a pet shake wind. Total risk is utilized for certain administrative offenses in which it is vital for people
occupied with conceivably unsafe or hurtful movement to practice outrageous, and not just sensible, mind.

PRINCIPLE DEALT WITH:

It manages the guideline of outright obligation. Outright risk is a guideline of strict obligation with no special case.
In a wrongdoing of supreme risk, a misstep of reality is not a resistance. Strict or Absolute Liability-likewise can
emerge from inalienably unsafe exercises or inadequate items that are probably going to bring about a mischief
to another, paying little mind to security taken. Carelessness is not required to be demonstrated. Illustration:
Owning a pet shake wind. Total risk is utilized for certain administrative offenses in which it is vital for people
occupied with conceivably unsafe or hurtful movement to practice outrageous, and not just sensible, mind.

Impact of the case on business

The Supreme Court mentioned the accompanying objective fact:

Since we are not choosing the question regarding whether Shriram is an expert inside the
importance of Article 12 in order to be subjected to the train of the crucial directly under
Article 21, we don't think it would be supported in setting up an extraordinary hardware for
examination of the cases for pay made by the individuals who assert that they have been the
casualties of oleum gas escape. However, we would coordinate that Delhi Legal Aid and
Advice Board to take up the instances of every one of the individuals who case to have
endured because of oleum gas and to document activities for their sake in the suitable court
for asserting pay against Shriram. Such activities guaranteeing pay might be recorded by the
Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board inside two months from today and the Delhi Administration
is coordinated to give the essential assets to the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board with the
end goal of documenting and indicting such activities.

Hence the High Court was coordinated to select at least one Judges as might be essential
with the end goal of attempting such activities so they might be speedily discarded.

On the off chance that the undertaking is allowed to bear on a perilous or innately risky
action for its benefit, the law must assume that such consent is restrictive on the venture
retaining the cost of any mishap emerging by virtue of such unsafe or intrinsically hazardous
action as a suitable thing of its overheads. Such perilous or intrinsically risky action for
private benefit can be endured just on condition that the venture occupied with such unsafe
or naturally risky movement reimburses each one of the individuals who endure by virtue of
the carrying on of such unsafe or inalienably hazardous action paying little mind to whether it
is carried on precisely or not. The Court additionally called attention to that the measure of
remuneration in the sort of cases alluded to must be related to the size and limit of the
endeavor in light of the fact that such pay must have an obstruction impact. The bigger and
more prosperous the undertaking, more prominent must be the measure of pay payable by it
for the mischief brought about by virtue of a mishap in the carrying on of the perilous or
characteristically risky action by the venture
Reference to other cases
In Canada, absolute liability is one of three types of criminal or regulatory offences. In R. v.
City of Sault Ste-Marie, the Supreme Court of Canada defined an absolute liability offence as
an offence "where it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was
free of fault."

COMPANY LAWS: Lee v Lee Farming Limited 1960

FACTS OF THE CASE
Catherine Lees husband Geoffrey Lee formed the company through Christchurch
accountants, which worked in Canterbury, New Zealand. It spread fertilizers on farmland
from the air, known as top dressing. Mr. Lee held 2999 of 3000 shares, and was the sole
director and also employed as the chief pilot. He was killed in a plane crash. Mrs. Lee wished
to claim damages of 2,430 pounds under the Workers Compensation Act 1922 for the death
of her husband. The company argued that he needed to be a worker, or any person who has
entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer whether remunerated
by wages, salary or otherwise.The Privy Council advised that Mrs. Lee was entitled to
compensation, since it was perfectly possible for Mr. Lee to have a contract with the
company he owned.
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
The case deals with the principle of Separate Legal Entity which says that a company is a
distinct legal entity from its directors or promoters. It also deals with the Workers
Compensation Act 1922 and who is entitled to be a worker, and believes that a director of the
company can also enter into a contract with the company to work for the same.
IMPACT OF THE CASE ON BUSINESS
The characteristics of an incorporated entity are:
1. It has perpetual existence, despite changes of its members and constitution;
2. It can own property of any kind, and thus buy and sell property in its own name;
3. It can be a party to a contract. A company is primarily liable for contracts entered
into by it, rather than its directors, members and/or shareholders; and
4. It can sue and be sued in its own name.
It is this separate legal personality that makes companies an attractive vehicle for commercial
ventures, as the liability rests with the company, rather than the shareholders, directors,
members or company officers. This separate legal personality has the consequence that a
company has perpetual succession. Its legal existence survives its members and directors. Its
existence is ended when it is wound up.
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA
The only exception to Separate Legal Entity is known as piercing the Corporate Veil, wherein
the courts treat the acts of the shareholders as those of the company. This also violates the
limited liability that shareholders have. Examples of the same are:

- Jones v Lipman in 1962

- Lubbe v Cape plc in 2000

REFERENCE TO SIMILAR CASES
Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd.

Mr Aron Salomon made cowhide boots and shoes in a huge Whitechapel High Street
foundation. His children needed to end up business accomplices, so he transformed the
business into a constrained organization. The organization acquired Salomon's business
for 39,000, which was an inordinate cost for its esteem. His better half and five senior
kids got to be endorsers and the two senior children got to be chiefs (yet as chosen one
for Salomon, making it a small time business). Mr Salomon took 20,001 of the
organization's 20,007 shares. Exchange of the business occurred on June 1, 1892. The
organization likewise gave Mr Salomon 10,000 in debentures (i.e., Salomon gave the
organization a 10,000 advance, secured by a gliding charge over the advantages of the
organization). On the security of his debentures, Mr Salomon got a progress of 5,000
from Edmund Broderip.
 Soon after Mr Salomon consolidated his business a decrease in boot deals, exacerbated by a
progression of strikes which drove the Government, Salomon's fundamental client, to part its
agreements among more firms to stay away from the danger of its couple of providers being
injured by strikes. Salomon's business fizzled, defaulting on its advantage installments on the
debentures (half held by Broderip). Broderip sued to authorize his security in October 1893. The
organization was put into liquidation. Broderip was reimbursed his 5,000. This left 1,055
organization resources staying, of which Salomon asserted under his held debentures. This
would leave nothing for the unsecured lenders, of which 7,773 was owing. At the point when
the organization fizzled, the organization's outlet battled that the coasting charge ought not be
respected, and Salomon ought to be made in charge of the organization's obligations. Salomon
sued.
Industry v Bottrill

Mr Bottrill was the managing director of the insolvent Magnatech UK Ltd, the fact that he
was the only shareholder did not preclude his claim for unpaid wages (346.15 a
week) from the National Insurance Fund. Mr Bottrills sole shareholding was merely a
temporary measure before the American Magnatech Group would take over
ownership.

DHN Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council

Adams v. Cape Industries plc

CONSUMER PROTECTION
Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995
The appellant, Laxmi Engineering Works, is an exclusive concern set up under the
Employment Promotion Programme. It is enlisted as a small scale industry with the
Directorate of Industries, Maharashtra and has additionally acquired money related help from
Maharashtra State Finance Corporation as term advance adding up to Rs.22. 10 lakhs
other than budgetary help from certain other sources. The appealing party submitted a request
with the respondent-P.S.G. mechanical establishment for supply of PSG 450 CNC
Universal Turing Central Machine on May 28, 1990. The appealing party's case is that the
respondent not just provided the machinery six months past the stipulated date but provided
an inadequate machine. Soon after it was introduced and operated, several defects became
visible which the litigant conveyed to the notice of the respondent. A good measure of
correspondence occurred between the partiesand though the respondent sent a few people
to correct the de-fects, the machine couldn't be placed in appropriate order. The appealing
party expresses that he was enduring genuine monetary misfortune by virtue of the blemished
working of the machine and in like manner he held up a dissension (No. 116 of 1992) before
the Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission guaranteeing a measure of
Rs.4,00,000/ - on a few courts from the respondent. The respondent showed up before the
State Commission and denied the appellant's claim. Bury alia, it raised a protest that since
the appealing party has obtained the machine for business purposes he is not a purchaser
inside the significance of the said expression as characterized in Section 2(d) of the Act. The
commission permitted the litigant's claim halfway, guiding the respondent to pay to the
appealing party a whole of Rs.2.48 lakhs inside 30 days failing which the said sum was to
convey intrigue at the rate of 18% for every annum. The respondent recorded an interest
before the National Commission which permitted the said advance on seventh December,
1993 on the main ground that the appealing party is not a "customer" as defined by the Act.
The National Commission watched: "(F)rom the actualities showing up on record it is
manifest that the complainant is carrying on the business of manufacture of machine parts on
an expansive scale with the end goal of gaining profit and essentially one single thing
of hardware in respectof which the objection appeal to was documented by him before
the State Commission itself is of the estimation of Rs. 21 lakhs and odd. In the conditions,
we neglect to perceive how the conclusion can be gotten away from that the machinery, in
address which is asserted to be faulty was bought for a business reason. Thus, the
complainant is not qualified for be regarded as a shopper and the complaint appeal to filed
by him was not maintainable before the State Commission. He arrange go by the
State Commission is set aside. The grievance request of is expelled." The National
Commission, in any case, watched that their request does not block the appealing party
from seeking after his cure by method for common suit.

The educated advice for the appealing party submits that the purpose for which the
litigant has bought the said ma-chine can't be known as a "business reason" and that the
litigant can't unquestionably be said to be carrying on business of fabricate of machine
parts "on a huge scale" with the end goal of procuring benefit. Learned guidance brought up
that appealing party is a little scale industry and the said machine was obtained by him for
the purpose of procuring work. Learned advice presented that the appealing party is
a restrictive worry of Shri Y.G.Joshi, who is a recognition holder in building and who
proposed to begin a little scale industry with financial help from open money related
foundations to acquire his livelihood. The litigant had enteredinto a concurrence
with Premier Automobiles for providing certain parts required for the make of autos by the
said concern. In any case, for this, the appealing party has no different business, it is
brought up. Then again, the educated guidance for the respondent presented that the reason
for which the appealing party acquired the said machine is without a doubt a business
reason as held by the National Commission reliably in the course of the most recent quite
a long while.
PRINCIPLE OF LAW DEALT IN THE CASE