SC's environmental nod clarity to revive 493 stalled projects, bring relief to homebuyers
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Thousands of homebuyers across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Pune can finally expect delivery of long-delayed homes, as the Supreme Court has cleared a key regulatory roadblock that had stalled approvals for hundreds of residential projects.The ruling paves the way for construction to resume on 493 stalled developments largely in the affordable and mid-income categories, helping momentum in two of the country's most active housing markets.The apex court, in its judgment on Vanashakti vs Union of India, reaffirmed that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) are the appropriate authorities for granting project-level environmental approvals in Maharashtra. The decision settles a jurisdictional conflict triggered by certain central government notifications issued in 2014 and 2016.'This is a monumental relief for Maharashtra's real estate sector,' said Domnic Romell, president, CREDAI-MCHI, which had approached the court on the matter. 'We initiated this petition to bring clarity to an increasingly ambiguous clearance process, and the Supreme Court has now provided much-needed certainty.'The verdict addresses long-standing uncertainty around environmental clearances that had delayed project approvals and disrupted construction timelines. With clarity now restored, developers are expected to resume work on these projects, unlocking over 70,000 housing units and offering long-awaited relief to affected homebuyers.'The judgment will not only revive the 493 stalled projects and fasten the delayed supply but also restores homebuyer confidence, introduces liquidity into the market, and restores economic activity across allied industries. Above all, it also underlines a progressive vision where environmental compliance is not diluted but seamlessly combined with development goals,' said Chintan Sheth, CMD, Sheth Realty.According to him, the balanced approach between sustainability and speed will set an example for future urban growth, allowing on-time deliveries while upholding responsibility towards the environment.The Supreme Court struck down Clause 14(a) and Appendix 16 of these notifications, which had proposed the creation of Environmental Cells under local planning authorities to issue clearances. Developers had flagged this framework as inconsistent with the existing SEIAA-SEAC process, raising concerns about delays, overlaps, and confusion.The court also dismissed the notion of differential treatment for industrial sheds and educational buildings under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, reinforcing the need for uniformity in environmental regulation across all project types.With the regulatory framework now clarified, developers are expected to move quickly to secure approvals and resume stalled work, particularly in high-demand locations across MMR and Pune. The ruling is seen as a timely intervention that will ease supply-side pressures and restore confidence among homebuyers and stakeholders in the state's key urban centres.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Changing track on pollution
The Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to halt coercive action against owners of so-called end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) is more than just a procedural breather: It's a much-needed shift away from an unscientific, punitive approach that has bothered motorists for nearly a decade. The court has agreed to revisit its own 2018 order, which upheld the National Green Tribunal's 2014 directive banning diesel vehicles over 10 years old and petrol vehicles over 15 from the roads in the National Capital Region. In doing so, it has given space to discuss a valid argument: Emissions, rather than age, should be the yardstick of a vehicle's roadworthiness. There is no data-based evidence proving that every diesel vehicle over 10 years old is uniformly more polluting than a newer one. (Hindustan Times) On paper, the logic of the original ban appeared to be straightforward — older vehicles are presumed to pollute more. But such a presumption is a poor substitute for scientific rigour. There is no data-based evidence proving that every diesel vehicle over 10 years old is uniformly more polluting than a newer one. In fact, many such vehicles have low annual mileage, are well maintained, and meet pollution under control (PUC) norms. A vintage car that is taken out a few times a year may be cleaner over its lifetime than a modern SUV driven daily through Delhi's gridlock. The age-based ban is a blunt approach — easy to enforce, but scientifically questionable. The broader point is that Delhi's pollution crisis will not be solved through piecemeal measures. Targeting motorists while leaving far more damaging sources — industrial emissions, construction dust, biomass burning — largely untouched is selective enforcement. Such bans also disproportionately affect lower- and middle-income citizens for whom replacing a vehicle is a financial burden. They also ignore the environmental cost of scrapping and manufacturing — processes that consume vast energy resources. If the aim is cleaner air, the route must be a comprehensive, sector-wide strategy that marries technology with policy. Real-world emissions monitoring, expansion of clean public transport, mandatory retrofitting of high emitters, and investment in walkable and cyclable infrastructure must form the core. The role of the State is to create systems that are proactive, consistent, and rooted in science. The Supreme Court has now opened the door to establishing a more rational framework — one that focuses on pollution vehicles, not their birthdays. If the government can seize this moment to craft a broad-spectrum, evidence-based plan, Delhi could finally take a step towards solving its air crisis.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court reserves judgement on JSW's $2.3 Bn Bhushan Steel bid
India's Supreme Court concluded hearings this week in a contentious case over JSW Steel's $2.3 billion bid to acquire Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) through India's bankruptcy mechanism, with the judgment now reserved. The high-stakes legal battle, heard on August 7th, 8th, and 11th, 2025, involved intricate interpretations of India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and featured heated exchanges between the counsel for BPSL, the Committee of Creditors ( CoC ), and the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), JSW. The proceedings centred on several contentious issues, including JSW's alleged non-compliance with its revised bid, the very nature and continued existence of the CoC, the impact of asset attachment by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the locus standi of promoters to challenge the resolution plan, and the rightful distribution of Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, and Amortization (EBITA). Issue 1: Alleged fraud in bid proposal, enforcement roadbloack Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing Bhushan's promoters through Kalyani Transco, accused JSW of fraud for failing to deliver on upfront payments that secured additional evaluation points, allowing it to outbid Tata Steel's ₹16,000 crore offer with a revised ₹19,000 crore proposal. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta , defending the Committee of Creditors (CoC), countered that the delays were justified due to enforcement actions that froze company assets. JSW was represented by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul. The dispute traces back to 2019 when JSW's original ₹11,000 crore bid scored just 35 points under the evaluation matrix, well behind Tata Steel's 65 points for its ₹16,000 crore offer. JSW's game-changing revised bid promised upfront payments to creditors and ₹8,000 crore in equity infusion, catapulting it to winning status. However, financial creditors weren't paid until March 2021—550 days after approval—while operational creditors waited until March 2022. "The very basis on which JSW received additional points has not been complied with," argued Mehta. JSW has infused only ₹100 crore in equity so far, though it issued Compulsory Convertible Debentures for additional funding, which Justice Gavai acknowledged as equivalent to equity "in the long term." JSW attributed implementation delays to the Enforcement Directorate's provisional attachment of company properties in April 2018 over money laundering allegations against Bhushan's former promoters. Despite Supreme Court and NCLAT orders, assets remained frozen until December 2024, creating uncertainty that JSW claimed made it unreasonable to invest in attached properties. JSW's counsel argued that despite an NCLAT order, effective protection only materialized after a Supreme Court order on December 11, 2024, which formally restituted the assets. They stated that it was unreasonable to expect JSW to invest heavily in attached properties and highlighted that the CoC itself had acknowledged the ED attachment as a cause for delay. JSW contended that the CoC failed to provide an unencumbered asset as stipulated in the bid plan. The CoC acknowledged this challenge, with Mehta noting that enforcement actions "penalized innocent parties" and were contrary to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's intent. Section 32A provides immunity to new owners from previous management's criminal acts, but JSW argued practical protection was lacking. The CoC agreed that it is unfair to expect SRA to pump crores into an attached property. BPSL's counsel, however, countered that JSW had been granted complete protection and immunity, and had denied that the plan was conditional on such relief. It was argued that due diligence had been conducted, and ongoing criminal cases cannot be used as a shield for non-fulfillment of plan conditions. It was noted that JSW implemented the plan after an escrow account was created and steel prices significantly increased in 2021. Justice Sharma acknowledged that the ED released the property in December 2024. Issue 2: The EBITA profit battle A parallel dispute emerged over ₹300 million in EBITA (Earnings Before Interest, Tax, and Amortization) profits generated during the 900-day implementation delay. The CoC argued that non-payment of EBITA provided a strong cause for reconsideration, stating that the CoC had suffered substantial daily losses (₹11.18 crore) and total losses of ₹67.80 crores due to the SRA's failure to implement the plan. They asserted that since the corporate debtor earned profit under the resolution professional's management, and the CoC had foregone approximately ₹20,000 crores, EBITA should be distributed to the stakeholders, as it represents public money. NCLT had held that EBITA must go to creditors, and the CoC cited Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta . JSW's counsel, however, defined EBITA as an asset of the company, not a distributable profit, and emphasized it was not contemplated in the RFRP or the plan, implying JSW would have bid differently if it had been. JSW's counsel argued that Essar Steel was silent on pre-approval EBITA distribution and that the Supreme Court in Essar held that "what is silent need not be given". JSW maintained that bidding was on a "going concern" basis, where EBITA remains with the company. JSW also cited the resolution professional's affidavit, stating a loss of approximately ₹15,000 crores, and the CoC's own written submissions which stated EBITA may remain with the company. Justice Gavai interjected that the RP did reduce losses by ₹1,000 crores, which increased the company's worth, though JSW's counsel maintained cut-down losses were not distributable profit. BPSL's rebuttal highlighted that JSW had all relevant financial information as per Regulation 36(2) while bidding, and the bid was not contingent upon EBITA. Legal experts are divided on the implications. "This move directly threatens the 'clean slate' principle, a cornerstone of the IBC designed to attract investors by shielding successful resolution applicants from past liabilities," warned Chirag Gupta, Associate Partner at Alpha Partners. "This uncertainty would inevitably lead to more conservative bids." However, others see potential benefits. "Such an order from the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to giving the earnings of the Corporate Debtor from the date of the approval of the Resolution Plan and the final date of implementation to the CoC would only strengthen the timebound process enshrined under the IBC," said Amir Bavani, Founder of AB Legal, Hyderabad. Bavani cautioned that favoring lenders "could cause a certain amount of discomfort vis-à-vis the willingness of potential Resolution Applicants to enter the insolvency fray to rescue a high-value Corporate Debtor." Issue 3: CoC's status post approval A major point of contention revolved around the CoC's role post-approval of the resolution plan. BPSL's counsel argued that the CoC becomes "functus officio" (losing its authority) once the plan is approved, rendering any subsequent negotiations or indefinite clauses on implementation contrary to law and frustrating the IBC's objectives. Justice Gavai concurred that open-ended clauses indeed undermine the IBC's purpose. Conversely, Mehta, representing the CoC, asserted that the IBC's framework implies the CoC's continuous existence until final adjudication, including appeals. He cited various sections of the IBC (S. 21, 23(1) proviso, 28, 30, 33) and Regulation 18 to support the CoC's ongoing functions and delegation of authority through monitoring committeee. He pointed out that the CoC, in its commercial wisdom, approved the plan with 97.25 per cent votes, and the plan itself stipulated its continuing power. JSW's counsel added that extensions were permitted under Regulation 38(2), (3) and were not "open-ended" as prohibited by the Ebix judgment, but rather justifiable and legally permissible Issue 4: Promoters' locus standi A subsidiary issue involves whether Bhushan's former promoters have legal standing to challenge the resolution plan. BSPL's counsel argued that the erstwhile promoters gave personal guarantees and are stakeholders, thus affected and fall under the category of 'aggrieved persons' under Section 61 and 62 of the IBC. But Mehta, for the CoC, argued that 'any aggrieved person' does not include defaulting creditors or promoters who "brought the company to dust." Kaul, for JSW, argued that backdoor entry to promoters can derail the proceedings. Reliance was placed on Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd to argue that problems of the earlier regime should not re-enter through "disingenuous stratagems." The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will likely establish crucial precedents for India's bankruptcy resolution process, particularly regarding bid implementation timelines, interim profit allocation, and the finality of creditor committee decisions. With over 4,000 cases pending under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the decision could significantly impact how future corporate rescues unfold, potentially requiring explicit EBITDA treatment clauses in all resolution plans.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Reliance Infra wins ₹526-crore arbitration award against Aravali Power
Reliance Infrastructure on Wednesday said it has been awarded an arbitration award of ₹526 crore against Aravali Power Company (APCPL) for the wrongful termination of a contract, reports The Economic Times. The dispute dates back to 2018 when Reliance Infra initiated arbitration proceedings after APCPL terminated the contract. According to a company statement, the funds from this award will be used for 'capital growth'. A three-member arbitral tribunal, in a majority decision, ruled that APCPL's termination of the contract was illegal, invalid and wrongful. The tribunal partly allowed Reliance Infra's claims for damages and costs incurred as a result of the termination. The announcement comes amidst a separate legal battle between the two companies. On July 1, the Delhi High Court sought a response from Reliance Infra regarding a petition filed by Aravali Power. This petition is aimed at enforcing a separate ₹600-crore arbitral award that Aravali Power had won against the Anil Ambani-led firm in December of the previous year. The case also stemmed from a contract breach allegation by Aravali Power, which led to a notice of termination and the invocation of arbitration in 2018. In that instance, a Supreme Court-appointed three-member arbitral tribunal granted Aravali Power a principal amount of ₹419 crore, along with ₹5 crore in costs and ₹149 crore in interest.
