Orissa High Court – Artifex.News

Orissa High Court dismisses Vedanta’s plea for supply of bauxite at price as per 2004 deal

admin — Thu, 01 Oct 2026 16:48:00 +0000

The Orissa High Court on Thursday (October 1, 2026) dismissed Vedanta Aluminium Limited’s plea seeking a direction to the Odisha government to make 150 million tonnes of bauxite available at the price agreed upon in 2004. Based on the assurance of a guaranteed supply of the raw material, the company had made massive investments, it claimed in the petition.

A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Judge Murahari Sri Raman, dismissed the writ petition by the Vedanta group after having found no merit in it.

In its petition, Vedanta urged that the Odisha government should respect the agreement which was entered into on October 5, 2004. The deal stipulated the supply of 150 million tonnes of bauxite at a price that stands on parity with other State-based manufacturers who benefited from captive mine operations. As per the agreement, Vedanta would bear the cost of extraction plus 50% royalty, together with other statutory dues.

Vedanta claimed, based on the State’s assurance, that it had made substantial investments for setting up alumina refinery and manufacturing plants. The company submitted that, despite the assurance, no supply of bauxite was made by the State, which caused them massive losses. The Odisha government reneged on its promise and demanded higher prices for the supply of bauxite, the company alleged. It laid the claim based on the principles of promissory estoppel, and sought for a direction by the court to the State to supply 150 million tonnes of bauxite at the assured rate.

Advocate General Pitambar Acharya appearing for the Odisha government argued that the writ petition was wholly misconceived, hopelessly barred by delay, laches, waiver and acquiescence and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

Mr. Acharya further argued that “after termination of the Joint Venture Agreements, the company consciously accepted and acted upon the Long Term Linkage (LTL) regime framed by the State government. The termination in 2015 itself assured supply of bauxite under the prevailing LTL Policy. The company participated in the process initiated under the amended LTL policy.”

“Presently, supplies are being effected under the subsisting LTL sales agreement in 2023 valid till 2028. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner unequivocally establishes acceptance of the post-amendment of the MMDR Act in 2015 and, thereby, it abandoned right flowing from the terminated Joint Venture Agreements,” Mr. Acharya submitted.

‘Inconsistent stand’

“By way of written note of submission, the petitioner [the Vedanta group] clearly admitted to the fact that in 2018 it agreed to receive bauxite under the LTL Policy of 2018. However, it sought to revive its rights under the initial assurance being made by way of MoUs and Agreements prior to amendment to the MMDR Act in the year 2015,” said the division bench. “This is an inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner. It has been representing the Odisha government for resurrection of the Joint Venture Company (JVC) with the State-run Odisha Mining Corporation (OMC) so as to get the supply of bauxite at the old price,” the division bench observed.

“For basically two reasons, the petitioner’s claim cannot be countenanced. First, by participating in the subsequent process under the amended provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, it acquiesced by its own conduct. This is particularly so since the JVC was terminated in the presence of representatives of Sterlite/Vedanta and the OMC. The validity of the termination in 2015 was never questioned and, therefore, attained finality,” the High Court said.

It added, “the said termination remained unassailed by the petitioner at any point of time and has, thus, attained finality. After long lapse of time, the petitioner cannot seek revival or indirect enforcement of agreements.”

A Vedanta Aluminium spokesperson said, “the company is evaluating the order and the legal recourse available before it. The order does not impact the supply of bauxite to Vedanta Aluminium.”

Published – October 01, 2026 10:17 pm IST

Source link

Surrogate Mothers Also Have Right To Avail Maternity Leave: High Court

admin — Sat, 06 Jul 2024 02:53:01 +0000

Mothers through surrogacy have the same right to maternity leave as provided to natural mothers.

Bhubaneswar:

Orissa High Court has recently ruled that female employees who become mothers through surrogacy have the same right to maternity leave and other benefits as provided to natural and adoptive mothers.

The single judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi gave the ruling on June 25 while hearing a petition filed by Supriya Jena, a female Odisha Finance Service (OFS) officer, in 2020.

Jena became a mother through surrogacy, but she was denied 180 days maternity leave by her higher authority in the Odisha government. So, she moved the high court against the government.

The court observed that a leave of 180 days is granted to female government employees on the adoption of a child up to one year of age in line with maternity leave as admissible to natural mothers for proper care of the adopted child.

However, there is no provision for maternity leave for the purpose of rearing a child blessed through surrogacy, it said.

“If the government could provide maternity leave to an adoptive mother, it would be wholly improper to refuse to provide maternity leave to a mother who had begotten a child through surrogacy procedure after implanting an embryo created by using either the eggs or sperm of the intended parents in the womb of a surrogate mother,” the court said.

It ruled that maternity leave should be granted to the employees who become mothers through surrogacy to ensure equal treatment and support for all new mothers, irrespective of how they become parents.

Providing maternity leave for these mothers ensures that they have the necessary time to create a stable and loving environment for their child, promoting the well-being of both the mother and the child, the high court said.

The court has directed the state government to sanction 180 days of maternity leave to the petitioner within three months of the communication of the order.

“It is further directed to the department concerned of the state to incorporate this aspect in the relevant provisions of the rules to treat a child born out of surrogacy in a similar manner as a child born out of the natural process and provide the commissioning mother with all the benefits provided thereto,” the judgment read.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Source link

14-Year-Old Girl Can’t Be Treated As “Chattel” In Custody Battle: Supreme Court

admin — Tue, 05 Mar 2024 15:09:45 +0000

The stability of a child is of “paramount importance”, the court said.

New Delhi:

Observing that a 14-year-old child cannot be treated as “chattel”, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Orissa High Court allowing the biological father of a girl her custody, saying she was living happily with her paternal aunt.

The top court, while hearing an appeal by the paternal aunt (father’s sister) against the high court order, said the stability of a child is of “paramount importance”.

It noted that the child, born in March 2014, has been living with the sister of her biological father since she was around three months old.

“It is not a case in which any of the parties is claiming adoption which otherwise is not permissible under Mohammedan law. Guardianship is also not being claimed. It is only the dispute regarding custody of the child,” a bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal said.

In the judgment pronounced on Monday, the bench said it interacted with the child, who said she was happy living with the present family and that she did not wish to be “destabilised”.

The Supreme Court noted that when the child’s custody was given to the man’s sister, she was unmarried, but now she has two children.

This, however, was not a deterrent to the court’s verdict as the child categorically voiced her desire to continue living with her aunt.

“Keeping in view her age at present, she is capable of forming an opinion in that regard… She cannot be treated as a chattel at the age of 14 years to hand over her custody to respondent No 2 (biological father) where she has not lived ever since her birth. The stability of the child is also of paramount consideration,” the Supreme Court said.

The mother of the girl had given birth to twins in 2014. While the couple kept one of the two babies with them, they handed over the girl to her maternal grandmother for raising her. The maternal grandmother kept her for three months before handing her over to her aunt with whom she was living until the Odisha High Court order.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Source link