https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171871 Repeated interlocutory applications cannot be used to reopen a final Supreme Court judgment or disturb settled liability, absent truly exceptional circumstances such as gross denial of natural justice. Attempts to relitigate concluded issues were treated as an abuse of process. Where remediation liability had already been quantified and remained unpaid for years, the Court applied restitution and unjust enrichment principles and held that prolonged non-compliance justified compound interest and realistic costs to neutralise any advantage from delay. The applicant-industry was therefore required to satisfy the remediation obligation with compound interest and costs. en-us Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 17:28:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171871 Repeated interlocutory applications cannot be used to reopen a final Supreme Court judgment or disturb settled liability, absent truly exceptional circumstances such as gross denial of natural justice. Attempts to relitigate concluded issues were treated as an abuse of process. Where remediation liability had already been quantified and remained unpaid for years, the Court applied restitution and unjust enrichment principles and held that prolonged non-compliance justified compound interest and realistic costs to neutralise any advantage from delay. The applicant-industry was therefore required to satisfy the remediation obligation with compound interest and costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171871