Dismissed

K Kuppan v. Managing Director Coromandel International Limited

NGT21 Jul 2026Original Application No. 135/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Southern Zone dismissed an application seeking a scientific investigation of an ammonia gas leak's impact on marine life and compensation. The court held the filing was belated (over 18 months post-incident) and speculative, noting concurrent litigation before the High Court on the same cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application O.A. No.135 of 2025 (SZ) is dismissed as the cause of action was filed belatedly.

K Kuppan vs Managing Director Coromandel International… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.2:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Tuesday, the 21^st day of July, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.135 of 2025 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

K. Kuppan, S/o. T. Kannu Aged about 71 years Former Member of Legislative Assembly (Thiruvottiyur Constituency) Office at: No.39/40, Jeevanlal Nagar Main Street, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019.

¶8

...Applicant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1) The Managing Director,

¶11

Coromandel International Limited, Coromandel House, 1-2-10, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad – 500 003, Telangana.

¶12

Also at: Chennai Factory, No.1, 2^nd Street, Satyavanimuthu, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Ennore, Near Periakuppam Chennai - 600 057.

¶13

Also at: Corporate Office, Olympia Terraces, No.15B (SP), SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶14

2) Union of India

¶15

Represented by the Principal Secretary Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶16

3) The Tamil Nadu Maritime Board

¶17

Represented by its Vice Chairman /

¶18

Chief Executive Officer, No.171, South Kesavaperumal Puram, Off Greenways Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

4) The State of Tamil Nadu

¶21

Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department,

¶22

3^rd Floor, Integrated Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Building, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶23

5) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)

¶24

Represented by its Member Secretary, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi – 110 032.

¶25

6) Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB)

¶26

Represented by its Chairman, No.76, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶27

7) Indian Register of Shipping (IRS)

¶28

Rep. by its Company Secretary, B, KGN Towers, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶29

8) Union of India,

¶30

Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶31

9) National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)

¶32

Represented by its Chairman,

¶33

5^th Floor, TICEL BIOPARK, CSIR Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113.

¶34

10) Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) Represented by its Hon’ble Chairperson, Thiruvarangam,

¶35

142, P.S. Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road) Chennai – 600 028.

¶36

11) National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB)

¶37

Represented by its Chief executive, Fish Building, Pillar No.235, PV Narasimha Rao expressway, Hyderabad – 500 052, Telangana.

¶38

12) Directorate of Industrial Safety and

¶39

Health (DISH), Tamil Nadu Represented by its Director, No.47/1, Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶40

13) Chief Inspector of Dock Safety,

¶41

Tamil Nadu, 3^rd Floor, Anchor Gate Building, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶42

...Respondent(s)

¶43

Page 2 of 6

¶44

For Applicant(s): M/s. Thirumalai Rajagopal & Shrivirudishini V.

¶45

For Respondent(s): Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Sr. Adv. for R1. Mr. J. Vinoth a/w. Mr. U. Gokulakrishnan for State of T.N. Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for TNPCB.

¶46

Judgement Reserved on: 08^th July, 2026.

¶47

CORAM :

¶48

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶49

J U D G M E N T

¶50

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶51

1. The above Original Application is filed based on the cause of action, which is the gas leak from under the sea pipeline of 1^st Respondent/Coromandel International Limited that occurred on 26.12.2023.

¶52

2. The prayer in the Original Application is as follows:

¶53

“ a. Direct Respondent No.2 (Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying), in coordination with Respondent No.4 (Tamil Nadu Fisheries Department), Respondent No.8 (MoEFCC), Respondent No.9 (NBA), Respondent No.11 (NFDB), and other necessary expert institutions (like NIOT, CMFRI, etc.), to constitute a multi-disciplinary expert committee to conduct a comprehensive, time-bound, scientific investigation and assessment of the impact of the ammonia gas leak of December 26, 2023, from Respondent No.1's pipeline on the marine environment in the Bay of Bengal off the coast of Thiruvottiyur, Ennore, and surrounding areas affecting approximately 27 fishing villages;

¶54

b. Direct that the said assessment specifically studies and quantify:

¶55

i. The short-term and long-term impact on marine biodiversity, including fish (various species), plankton, benthic organisms, and other marine life.

¶56

ii. The impact on fish health, physiology, and critically, their reproductive capacity and potential genetic damage.

¶57

iii. Changes in fish migration patterns and population dynamics in the affected area.

¶58

iv. Damage to the marine habitat, including seabed contamination, water quality parameters (persistent pollutants, pH changes), and impact on breeding/nursery grounds.

¶59

Page 3 of 6

¶60

v. The direct correlation between the ammonia leak and the reported sustained decline in fish catch experienced by the local fishermen.

¶61

vi. The full extent of economic loss suffered by the fishermen and fishing-dependent families in the affected villages due to reduced catch and damage to the fishery resource, from the date of the incident onwards.

¶62

c. Direct Respondent No.1 (Coromandel International Limited) to bear the entire cost of conducting the comprehensive assessment as prayed for in (a) and (b).

¶63

d. Direct the expert committee, based on its findings, to formulate a detailed, long-term Marine Ecosystem Restoration and Remediation Plan for the affected area, and direct Respondent No.1 to implement the said plan under the supervision of Respondents No.2, 4, 6, and 8, at its own cost.

¶64

e. Direct Respondent No.1 to create a substantial compensation fund, based on the assessment of economic loss (Prayer b(vi)), to adequately compensate the affected fishermen and their families in the approximately 27 villages for the past, present, and future loss of livelihood and income resulting from the ammonia leak. Direct the constitution of an independent committee, including representatives of the affected communities and the Applicant, to oversee the fair and transparent disbursal of this compensation.

¶65

f. Direct Respondents No.5 and 6 (CPCB and TNPCB) and Respondents No.3, 7, 12, 13 (Maritime Board, IRS, DISH, Dock Safety) to conduct a fresh, rigorous audit of Respondent No.1's pipeline integrity, safety protocols, leak detection systems, and emergency response mechanisms, and mandate the implementation of state-of-the-art safety upgrades, including real-time underwater monitoring and early warning systems for coastal communities, before allowing any further ammonia transfer operations. ”

¶66

3. The matter was heard at the admission stage.

¶67

4. In this regard, the Tribunal had taken suo motu cognizance and registered Original Application No.195 of 2023 (SZ) and also a transferred Original Application from the Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original Application No.81 of 2024 (PB) . The said Original Applications were heard and disposed of on 21.05.2024 by giving the following directions:

¶68

“ (i) The 7^th Respondent is directed to strictly follow the directions issued by the various official respondents including the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the recommendations made by the Technical Committee (constituted by the TNPCB).

¶69

(ii) The 7^th Respondent is directed to obtain necessary NOC from Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health (DISH) and approvals from the Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) and the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board before resuming the operation of ammonia offshore pipeline activity.

¶70

(iii) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to closely monitor the activities of the 7^th Respondent.

¶71

Page 4 of 6

¶72

(iv) The Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health and the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board are directed to inspect the unit before issuing NOC and approvals for restarting the ammonia operations.

¶73

(v) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board should utilize the environmental compensation of Rs.5.92 Crore collected from the 7^th Respondent for environmental mitigation in Ennore industrial area. ”

¶74

5. The present Original Application is filed on the same cause of action but on 09.07.2025 after a lapse of more than 18 months of the occurrence. The Applicant, who is the resident of the area, did not care to implead himself in the suo motu Original Applications referred above to highlight any further grievance. There is also no explanation for approaching the Tribunal belatedly when he is seeking a conduct of comprehensive, time bound, scientific investigation and assessment of the impact of the Ammonia Gas leak on 26.12.2023. The study of the impact on fish health, physiology and any potential genetic damage cannot be done after the passage of 2 ½ years.

¶75

6. To be noted is that the applicant, after filing the Original Application on 09.07.2025 before this Tribunal, had filed Writ Petition No.50095 of 2025 [K. Kuppan Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Ors.] for issuing a mandamus to enforce the rule of law by sealing the premises of the respondent company’s Ammonia Terminal and sub-sea pipeline operations in Ennore on the ground that the said operations are being conducted without a valid CRZ Clearance and Environmental Clearance, thereby rendering the operations illegal and void ab-initio and secure the site under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

¶76

7. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, vide Order dated 20.01.2026, has issued only notice to the respondents without any interim order and the said writ petition is pending before the Division Bench. The above-referred writ petition is filed on 04.12.2025 before the Hon’ble High Court when the Original Application filed before the Tribunal was pending admission and adjourned at the request of the applicant on 24.07.2025, 26.08.2025, 01.12.2025, 05.02.2026, 18.02.2026, 30.03.2026, 01.06.2026 and finally on 08.07.2026.

¶77

Page 5 of 6

¶78

8. From the above conduct of the applicant, it is very clear that the application is a speculative one and he has been prosecuting before two forums on the same cause of action. As already the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has issued notice in the writ petition for the same reliefs, we find no merit in the present case and it would be appropriate to close the same.

¶79

9. Accordingly, the Original Application [O.A. No.135 of 2025 (SZ)] is dismissed.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶82

Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No O.A. No.135/2025 (SZ) 21^st July, 2026. Mn.

¶83

Page 6 of 6

K Kuppan v. Managing Director Coromandel International Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Kuppan v. Managing Director Coromandel International Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Local Residents Muchibazar Bidhan Nagar Road Area vs State of West Bengal

Bablu vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sunil Kumar Gupta vs Jeetu Gupta

Mohammed Zabibulla vs the Department of Tourism Rep by Its Commissioner

Yogesh Pratap Singh vs Member-Secretary State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Sandeep Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary Department of Environment

Letter Petition by Mr Rjvishwakarma Received Via Mail Dated 22ND May 2026 Titled Aadiwashi Anchal Dindori Jile Ki Budhner Nadi Mai Ret Uthkhanan Ke Sambandh Mai vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Manjunath Hirechowti vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Namala Umashri Francis vs Special Chief Secretary to the Govt of Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department Andhra Pradesh and Others

MD Naheem Pasha vs Mancherial District Collector