Rhythm County Vs Satish Sanjay Hegde 2026 INSC 102 - Environmental Compensation - Project Turnover

Project Turnover Can Be A Relevant Yardstick For The Determination Of Environmental Compensation: Supreme Court

National Green Tribunal Act - Section 15 - NGT can mould relief in a manner commensurate with the nature and gravity of environmental harm. (Para 21) Environmental compensation must be rational, proportionate and reasoned. While turnover cannot be a blunt instrument, at the same time, it cannot be excluded as a relevant factor where the facts so warrant - While project turnover or cost cannot be applied mechanically as a blunt instrument, it nevertheless remains a relevant and permissible factor where the factual matrix so warrant. (Para 46) [Context: In this case, the NGT imposed substantial environmental compensation—Rs. 5 crores on Rhythm County and Rs. 4,47,42,188 on Key Stone Properties]

Case Info

Case name and neutral citation:M/s. Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde & Ors.; M/s. Key Stone Properties v. Shashikant Vithalkamble & Ors., 2026 INSC 102

Coram:Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Judgment date:30 January 2026 (NEW DELHI)

Statutes / Laws Referred

  • National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – especially sections 15, 17 and 20
  • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
  • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 and MoEF&CC notifications dated 09.12.2016 and 14.03.2017
  • Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
  • Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
  • Various guidelines / methodology of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on environmental compensation

Caselaws and Citations Referred

  • M/s. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 18 SCC 257
  • Kantha Vibhag Yuva Kohli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 13 SCC 525
  • Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India, order dated 03.08.2018 in O.A. No. 593 of 2017 and order dated 22.02.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 375 of 2012
  • DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1601
  • Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation, (2019) 18 SCC 494
  • Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 6 SCC 402
  • Grasim Industries Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, C.A. Nos. 7004–7005 of 2021
  • Benzo Chem Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan, C.A. Nos. 9202–9203 of 2022
  • Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee v. District Collector, Vellore, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 207
  • Research Foundation for Science (18) v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 186
  • C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. v. Adil Ansari, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1812
  • Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401