AN PADMARAJ (business) 06 September 2016

Tortious damages against administrating authority

I am the Chief Technical Officer of a floundering company which aims to claim damages for tortious negligence from the Administrative Authority incharge of Offshore Mining (as iinotified in the Gazette of India) operating from Nagpur, Maharashtra. The damages can be easily quantified to >Rs. 6 crores related to our Company alone. Need to first discuss the extent and present implications of the important 'sovereingnty factor' in Indian law. I shall be obliged for early comments and discussions.

Reply Follow

5 Replies

Advocate Kappil Cchandna (Expert Bail & Criminal Defence Lawyer at Delhi Supreme Court of India) 06 September 2016

Sir, Please discuss the actual incident and then I can comment on anything ..... Warm Regards Kapil Chandna Advocate 9899011450

P. Venu (Advocate) 06 September 2016

The aspect of the defendent being State does not matter. However, Notice under Section 80 CPC needs to be served on the authorities concerned. The Notice is not necessary if the proposed action is against the Officers concerned in their personal capacity.

AN PADMARAJ (business) 14 September 2016

Dear Mr. Chandna,

I have ATTACHED the relevant notification with some comments on it. Behind all this is the very corrupt Indian Bureau of Mines (housing the notifed Authority) which having failed to distribute these valuable national assets to crony-capitalists and wheeler-dealers due to related court cases and injunctions, is now resorting on this 'scorched-earth' policy to see that even genuine actual users like us dont get a single exploration block near our Ti-Slag smelter location on the Konkan coast. We are now aiming to atleast get some rightful compensation for our 7 years of high-tech preparation and related field work to compensate our shareholders.

AN PADMARAJ

Attached File : 363825 20160914141857 60156492 gazette notification 1691 r1 notes.pdf,

downloaded: 202 times

AN PADMARAJ (Executive Director & CTO) 18 September 2016

Dear All,

Although all 62 blocks in GoI's S.O. 1341(E)dt 09JUN10 lay within territorial water limit of 12 nautical miles which seemingly may forbid any exploration work as curtailed by GoI's later notification S.O. 19(E) dt 06JAN11, the GoI never took the stand now spelled out in S.O. 2324(E) dt 06JUL16 [ Offshore_Annulation_Notification (06JUL16) .pdf ] in any of its court submissions in any of its rejoinder filed in writ petitions in the HC of Mumbai (Nagpur Bench), HC of Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad) or HC of Madras (Chennai) all through the interim period of >6 years between 09JUN10 to 30JUN16 thus maintaining a grey area of GoI acquiescence under OAMDR [ ref: Offshore_Areas_Mineral_Development_Regulation_Act_2002 .pdf ]. Such a stand taken in time would have saved us crores of rupees of shareholder money in related expenditure.

Your comments may help me finalise the right team for taking this claim forward.