Prasol Chemicals Limited promoter faces four pending cases

Prasol Chemicals Limited, referred to as Prasol, has disclosed four pending criminal complaints against promoter Gaurang Natwarlal Parikh arising from three safety incidents at its Mahad Manufacturing Facility between November 2022 and October 2023. The disclosures describe two reported worker deaths, while two complaints concern the same October 2023 gas event.

Why does Prasol face four pending criminal cases at Mahad?

Prasol faces four pending criminal cases because the disclosed complaints allege separate breaches of factory-safety rules arising from three incidents at the Mahad Manufacturing Facility. All four complaints are before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad at Alibaug and were stated to be pending in the red herring prospectus.

The first matter, RCC/15/2023, was filed on February 4, 2023, after a November 14, 2022 industrial accident. The complaint alleges non-compliance with Rules 73N(1)(f) and 73N(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963, after the alleged mixing of incompatible chemicals generated hydrogen sulphide gas. The prospectus describes one fatality and injuries to another worker, and alleges deficiencies in labelling, hazard communication and personal protective equipment.

The October 5, 2023 event produced two complaints, which is why four complaints do not represent four separate incidents. SCC/1208/2023, filed on November 21, 2023, alleges non-compliance with Section 7A(2)(a) of the Factories Act, 1948. RCC/177/2023, filed on November 20, 2023, alleges non-compliance with Rule 73H(1) of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963. Both concern the reported death of one contract worker and exposure of four others during effluent mixing.

What do the Mahad gas-leak complaints allege?

The Mahad complaints allege failures involving process safety, equipment, gas detection, alarms and protective equipment, but Prasol does not report any court finding on those allegations. The complaints instead remain pending criminal proceedings against Mr Parikh, who is identified as a promoter in each of the four matters.

SCC/1208/2023 says acidic and alkaline effluents were mixed on October 5, 2023 in the DETC plant, allegedly resulting in hydrogen sulphide, or H2S, gas. The complaint attributes the event to non-functional vacuum ejectors and inadequate safety systems. It also alleges the absence of H2S detectors near critical equipment, non-functional alarms and insufficient personal protective equipment for workers.

RCC/177/2023 addresses the same October 2023 event under Rule 73H(1). Its allegations include failure to identify process hazards, non-functional vacuum systems, the absence of enclosed systems and scrubber connections for box filters, and inadequate safeguards for handling hazardous chemicals. The second October complaint therefore concerns a different alleged rule breach, rather than an additional reported death or separate incident.

SCC/1157/2023, filed on October 27, 2023, concerns a chlorine-gas leak on August 9, 2023 during chlorination in the DETC plant. The complaint alleges that a rupture disc failed and the scrubber system was not operating, exposing four workers to fumes. It further alleges absent chlorine detectors and alarms, lack of continuous scrubber operation, no interlocking safety mechanisms and no mandatory pressure-plant testing by a competent person before use.

What is the status of the cases against Prasol’s promoter?

The four Mahad-related complaints remain pending, and the prospectus records bail applications and payment of bail amounts in all four matters. A pending complaint is an allegation under judicial consideration, and the disclosed material does not state that Mr Parikh has been convicted in any of the four cases.

In RCC/15/2023, a summons was issued and Mr Parikh submitted a bail application on December 15, 2023. In SCC/1208/2023, he made a bail application on January 24, 2025. For SCC/1157/2023 and RCC/177/2023, both related to the August and October 2023 incidents, the prospectus records bail applications and payment of bail amounts on January 31, 2025.

A separate disclosure based on the eCourts website concerns Summary Criminal Case No. 1004/2025, filed by the State of Maharashtra on October 14, 2025. It alleges an offence under Section 7A(2)(a) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Prasol says Mr Parikh had not received a summons, complaint or other documents, and the matter was next listed for August 14, 2026; it is separate from the four gas-incident complaints.

What other factory and pollution actions has Prasol disclosed?

Prasol has also disclosed safety and pollution notices from the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Raigad District and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, or MPCB. These regulatory notices are separate from the four criminal complaints and do not constitute court findings on the alleged criminal breaches.

On August 22, 2025, the industrial-safety authority issued a show-cause notice against Mr Parikh alleging a Section 7A(2)(a) violation. Prasol responded on September 10, 2025, stating that management had taken practicable measures. Following a September 22, 2025 notice directing a safety audit, Prasol conducted the audit on October 4, 2025 and submitted the report on November 4, 2025.

Prasol also responded on November 4, 2025 to a second September 22 safety notice alleging that work involving a P255 drum flaker and conveyor system was unsafe. Prasol said it had implemented corrective and preventive measures, completed a risk assessment and established maintenance schedules and emergency-response procedures. The prospectus records no further correspondence with the industrial-safety authority after that response.

MPCB notices ranged from a November 16, 2022 notice following a caustic-lye unloading accident to show-cause notices dated March 27 and July 25, 2025. The March 2025 notice alleged, among other matters, that one aeration tank and one clarifier in Prasol’s effluent treatment plant were not operating, and raised waste-storage and hydrogeological-study issues. Prasol says it replied to the listed MPCB notices and records no further correspondence in those matters.

Conclusion

The disclosed record links four pending complaints against one Prasol promoter to three Mahad incidents, not four separate accidents. The most important distinction is that two complaints arise from the October 5, 2023 event, which reportedly caused one contract-worker death and exposed four others, while the November 2022 incident accounts for the other reported death.

The next disclosed developments to watch are court progress in the four pending complaints and the separate Summary Criminal Case No. 1004/2025, which was listed for August 14, 2026. Prasol has disclosed an October 2025 safety audit and corrective measures, but further authority correspondence or judicial findings had not been reported in the prospectus.