Thoothukudi VOC Port achieves another milestone in handling of bulk cargo
The terminal can discharge dry-bulk cargo such as coal, limestone, gypsum, rock phosphate and copper concentrate with two 120 tonnes capacity harbour mobile cranes.
The 306 metres long, 14.20 metres draft, North Cargo Berth–III facilitates berthing of 95,000 Dead Weight Tonnage vessels of maximum LoA of 260 metres and beam of 48 metres. The concession agreement has been signed between the Port and JSW Tuticorin Multipurpose Terminal for mechanisation of North Cargo Berth–III. On mechanization by March 2027, JSW Tuticorin Multipurpose Terminal will be capable of handling 7 million tonnes of bulk cargo per annum.
The dredging in front of the North Cargo Berth-III was carried out from April 5 and completed in a span of just 26 days enabling berthing of fully loaded Panamax vessels with draft of 14.20 metres. At present, dredging is being carried out in the turning circle of the inner harbour to widen its diameter from 488 metres to 550 metres and will be completed during this month.
Further, the channel will be widened from 153 metres to 230 metres, facilitating berthing of larger size bulk carriers and container vessels.
The Link Conveyor System, connecting Tuticorin Thermal Power Station's conveyor belt to the Port's coal yard can discharge over 1,500 tonnes of bulk cargo per hour. This initiative optimizes the capacity of the fully mechanized TANGEDCO's coal berth with a draft of 14.20 meters, a deadweight tonnage (DWT) of 80,000 tonnes, and accommodating vessels up to 230 meters in length.
Chairman, V.O. Chidambaranar Port Authority Susanta Kumar Purohit, in a statement said the readiness of NCB-III Berth for handling dry bulk cargo marks a significant step in the Port's drive toward modernization and dry bulk cargo capacity enhancement.
'I urge all stakeholders and trade partners to fully utilize this state-of-the-art facility to boost bulk cargo operations and support the growth of maritime trade through VOC Port,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Rare Recall: SC will Again Hear JSW-BPSL Case
The Supreme Court Thursday recalled its May 2 judgment that scrapped JSW Steel 's acquisition of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) and ordered its liquidation, giving interim relief to the Sajjan Jindal-led company that claims to have infused Rs 30,000 crore to turn around the bankrupt steelmaker. A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai allowed the review pleas filed by JSW Steel and BPSL's lenders, including State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank , and posted the petitions for a detailed hearing on August 7. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Data Analytics MCA Degree Operations Management Project Management Digital Marketing Finance Management Data Science PGDM Design Thinking Leadership Public Policy healthcare others MBA Data Science Cybersecurity Others Technology Product Management Healthcare CXO Artificial Intelligence Skills you'll gain: Data Analysis & Visualization Predictive Analytics & Machine Learning Business Intelligence & Data-Driven Decision Making Analytics Strategy & Implementation Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Applied Business Analytics Starts on Jun 13, 2024 Get Details While it is rare for the top court to reconsider its orders, a bench that also includes Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said this 'is a fit case' where the judgment 'needs to be recalled and the matter is to be considered afresh'. 'Prima facie, we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not correctly consider the legal position as has been laid down in the catena of judgments,' the bench said. It also noted the contention of the petitioners that the previous judgment had considered various incorrect factual aspects. 'We are inclined to allow the review. We won't look into any documents, just the judgment itself,' Justice Gavai said. Another bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had on May 2 scrapped JSW Steel's acquisition of BPSL, four years after the transaction was closed, holding that the steelmaker's Rs 19,700 crore resolution proposal was 'illegal' and 'in gross violation' of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code . It termed JSW's intention 'mala fide and dishonest', saying that the company took undue advantage of pending Enforcement Directorate proceedings and did not implement its plan for two years. Justice Trivedi has since retired. After JSW sought a review of the order, SC on May 26 ordered status quo on the liquidation proceedings till it decided the review petition . The lenders too approached the court with a similar review plea.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to revisit order on JSW's Bhushan deal
The Supreme Court on Thursday recalled its order scrapping JSW Steel's ₹19,700 crore deal in 2021 to acquire Bhushan Power and Steel Limited, noting serious 'error apparent' in the judgment which was decided contrary to settled decisions of the top court. The apex court's Thursday decision also comes as a relief to lenders, including State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, which filed separate review petitions supporting JSW Steel's position. The May ruling ordered the banks to return ₹ 19,350 crore paid by JSW Steel (HT File) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice SC Sharma said, 'Prima facie we are of the view that the impugned judgment [of May 2] does not correctly consider the legal position as laid down by this court. Apart from that, it is pointed out [by CoC and JSW] various incorrect factual submissions have been taken on record, and arguments which were not advanced were considered by the court. We find it a fit case for the judgment under review to be recalled and the matter needs to be heard afresh.' The erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel disputed this position. The order was passed on a review petition filed by JSW Steel. Posting the matter for further hearing on August 7, the top court agreed to hear all sides, including the erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel, on all issues. The May 2 decision — it said he acquisition violated provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), especially those on timelines — shocked corporate and banking circles; the JSW deal was often cited as a success of IBC, allowing companies that had been run to the ground by their promoters, usually at a great cost to banks that had loaned them money, to be revived under new owners. The apex court's Thursday decision also comes as a relief to lenders, including State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, which filed separate review petitions supporting JSW Steel's position. The May ruling ordered the banks to return ₹19,350 crore paid by JSW Steel. JSW's acquisition was approved by the committee of creditors (CoC), the national company law tribunal (NCLT) and national company law appellate tribunal (NCLAT). Review petitions are taken up by the court in chambers and only when the court feels satisfied that the case needs to be re-heard, the matter is placed for hearing in open court. On Wednesday, the petition was taken up in chambers and a decision was taken to list it in open court. Appearing for CoC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, assisted by a team of lawyers from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas led by advocate Raunak Dhillon, pointed out that the plan of JSW Steel was approved with a 99% majority. He said that the CoC had presented elaborate minutes of meeting before the court showing detailed discussion on the pros and cons of accepting JSW's plan. He referred to earlier decisions by the top court on IBC which lay down the law that the courts will not sit in judgment over the commercial wisdom of CoC. For JSW, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, assisted by a team of lawyers from Karanjawala & Co, pointed out that since 2021, the company has been running Bhushan Steel . In the process, it has infused over ₹20,000 crore, cleared all dues incurred by the previous management, and doubled the production of steel. From 18,000 employees, the company's workforce has swelled to 25,000. He added that the judgment of May 2 also has had a debilitating effect on IBC and needs to be set aside. Mehta told the court that the top court 's May ruling on timelines not being observed were not even argued. The May 2 judgment was pronounced by a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi (since retired) and SC Sharma, who is the other member on the bench with CJI hearing the review plea. CJI Gavai said, 'My brother (justice Sharma) has been kind enough to be candid. He has told me that the points argued have not been considered by the judgment. I am grateful to my brother. How could the court go into the issue that was not argued and suggest this is suppressed, that is suppressed.' The erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel represented by senior advocate Dhruv Mehta objected to the submissions made by CoC and JSW. But the SG pointed out that the erstwhile promoters of the company, who landed it in serious serious financial trouble cannot be allowed to raise a finger on the correctness of a plan by which the company stands revived. 'They were part of the dirty dozen that left the company in financial doldrums and now want to drag a successful company into liquidation,' he said. Shares of JSW rose 1.93% apiece to close the day at ₹1057.90, on a day when BSE's benchmark Sensex closed 0.36% down.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- The Hindu
SC to hear JSW-Bhushan Steel case afresh, recalls May 2 judgment for liquidation
A Special Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Thursday recalled a May 2 verdict of the court which rejected a resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL). The apex court judgment had further ordered the liquidation of BPSL to commence. However, on Thursday, the Bench decided to hear the case afresh. It was of the prime facie view that the judgment in May, authored by Justice Bela Trivedi (now retired), had not clearly appreciated the legal position in the case. 'Prima facie, we are of the view that the judgment did not correctly consider the legal position laid down in a catena of judgments,' the Bench noted. It said various factual aspects had to be taken into consideration in the case. 'This is a fit case wherein judgment under review need to be recalled and the matter is to be considered afresh,' the court concluded. It listed the review petitions for detailed hearing on August 7. On May 26, the apex court had ordered status quo in the liquidation proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal. The court had passed the order of status quo on liquidation to give JSW time to file a review petition. The court had, at the time, said status quo ought to prevail for BPSL in the interest of justice and to avoid future complications. JSW had argued that the case was complicated, and must not be rushed into liquidation. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for JSW, had informed the court that BPSL had an annual turnover of ₹28,000 crore in one year. Its production had increased from 2.5 metric tonnes to 4.5 metric tonnes. The firm employed 25,000 people. On May 2, the Supreme Court had found JSW's Resolution Plan for BPSL in 'flagrant violation and contravention' of the law. 'The Resolution Professional had utterly failed to discharge his statutory duties contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations during the course of entire CIR proceedings of the corporate debtor, BPSL,' the Supreme Court had concluded. The court had invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings against the BPSL under the IBC. The court had faulted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for accepting the Resolution Plan. 'The CoC had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan of the JSW… The CoC had failed to protect the interest of the creditors by taking contradictory stands before this court, and accepting the payments from JSW without any demurrer, and supporting JSW to implement its ill-motivated plan against the interest of the creditors,' the May 2 verdict had observed. The CoC, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, too submitted his reservations about the May 2 judgment.
