Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Nifty Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Union of India
I.A. No. .....with I.A. Nos. 1-2 in T.C.(Civil) No. 113 of 2005 with I.A. No.......... and I.A. No.1 in T.C.(C) No.115 of 2005 I.A. Nos.1-3 & 4 in T.C.(C) No.117 of 2005 I.A. No......... and I.A. No.1 in T.C.(C) No.118 of 2005 I.A. Nos.1 & 2 and I.A. No. ....... in T.C.(C) No.119 of 2005 I.A. No........and I.A. Nos.1 & 2 IN T.C.(C) No.120 of 2005 I.A. No.......and I.A. Nos.1 & 2 in T.C.(C) No.121 of 2005 I.A.No.1 in T.C.(C) No.122 of 2005 Contempt Petition (C) No.47 of 2008
Decided on : 27-02-2009
[Para ]
B. Interest Act, 1978, Section 3 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 34 - Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws - Interest - Liability for interest - Interest payable on deposit made in compliance of orders of court – Computability - Interest is computable till the date on which refund was actually made and not up to any earlier date - Reasons for payment of interest restated.
[Para ]
Judgment :
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. By this order we propose to dispose of the above mentioned interlocutory applications arising out of Transfer Case Nos. 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 of 2005 and contempt petition No. 47 of 2008 in T.C. (C) 116/2005 and contempt petition No. 49 of 2008 in T.C. (C) 112/2005.
2. The basic facts in all these applications are similar. Therefore, the facts in I.A. No. .....with I.A. Nos. 1-2 in T.C. (Civil) No. 113 of 2005 are taken as illustrative for the purpose of our decision.
3. The present application is filed on behalf of the four applicants, namely, M/s. Trimurti Moulds Pvt. Ltd., Coventry Stonewares Pvt. Ltd., Vidharbha Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and Ceramics Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. through their respective Directors praying for issuance of directions to the M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. (a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd) being respondent herein for implementation and execution of the direction given by this Court in its order dated 30.10.2007 in T.P. (C) No. 100 of 2006. The prayer was to the following effect:-
(i) Direct the respondent Coal Company i.e. M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. to implement and obey their own undertaking given before this Court and as recorded by this Court in its order dated 12.12.2005 and 30.10.2007 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 100 of 2006 and analogous matters and refund excess money deposited by the Petitioners/Applicants herein over and above the Notified Price since the introduction of E-auction along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, and/or
(ii) Direct the Respondent M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. to pay Bank interest on the amount already refunded to applicants (on 25.07.2008) not only up to 30.4.2008 but till the date of payment.
4. The applicants are non-core linked consumers of coal of M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. It is stated in the application that the applicants and other similarly situated non-core linked consumers were being supplied coal by M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. at fixed price which is stated to be Notified Price, which was used to be fixed once in a year by the respondent coal company. The Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiary coal company like the respondent herein introduced a new Scheme in the year 2004 for sale of coal and the said scheme was made applicable to even non-core linked consumers like the applicants herein. The aforesaid Scheme was called as "E-auction Scheme" in which price of coal was to be determined by market forces in place of fixed price, i.e. the Notified Price. The validity and legality of the aforesaid scheme of E-auction was challenged by the various companies like and including the applicants herein by way of writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The writ petition of the applicants was registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2421 of 2005. In the said writ petition the High Court passed an interim order on 21.06.2005, whereby and whereunder Coal India Ltd. and M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. were directed to supply coal to the applicants at Notified Price subject to petitioner depositing with M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. the difference between the E-auction price and the Notified Price.
5. In view of and in terms of the aforesaid interim order applicants started lifting coal after depositing the amount in cash, with respect to the difference between the average E-auction price and the notified price. Similar writ petitions were filed challenging the legality of the aforesaid Scheme of sale of coal through E-auction in various other High Courts. Interim orders were passed by a number of High Courts also, and therefore, special leave petitions came to be filed by the companies like the applicants in this Court. The coal companies preferred a number of transfer petitions in this Court seeking transfer of all the writ petitions pending on the aforesaid subjects before the various High Courts to this Court. The special leave petitions filed by the various coal consumers in this Court and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.