Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, S. V. N. BHATTI
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Industries Limited – Respondent
Key Points: - The Respondent is entitled to coal supply for the suspended period at the current rate and in accordance with the prevalent policy, rejecting claims for monetary compensation (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court clarified that the "current price" refers to the rates applicable as of the dates of the relevant orders, specifically 09.04.2014 or 17.05.2019 (!) (!) . - The Court rejected the Petitioner's offer to supply coal on a tapering basis or to pay compensation, mandating a full Fuel Supply Agreement for the suspended period instead (!) (!) . - The Respondent is granted the choice to select either the 09.04.2014 or 17.05.2019 date to determine the current price and policy for the new agreement (!) . - The Union of India and SECL are obligated to supply coal as a normal linkage (not tapering) within four weeks after the Respondent chooses the applicable date (!) . - The Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications seeking immediate payment of Rs. 106 Crore or credit against existing agreements, ruling them unavailable (!) (!) . - Previous orders from 2013 and 2014 were upheld, confirming the shift from compensation to coal supply for the disputed period (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that established judicial mandates take precedence over arbitrary modifications or inconsistent interpretations by the parties (!) . - The specific period for supply restoration covers the suspension from October 2011 until July 2013, not a reduced period offered by the Petitioner (!) (!) . - The Fuel Supply Agreement must be entered into within four weeks of the Respondent's choice of date, with supply commencing within two weeks thereafter (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. order compliance and relief. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of coal supply disputes. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. respondent's claims for compensation. (Para 10) |
| 4. judicial interpretation of prior orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. obligation to supply coal and compliance. (Para 15) |
| 6. disposition of miscellaneous applications. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. On 19.08.2025, the Special Leave Petition Nos. 3529-3530 of 2020 were dismissed by this Court. The Court observed as follows:
The parties to the present Judgment are referred to as arrayed in the said Special Leave Petitions.
2. On 17.09.2025, the Union of India filed an affidavit purporting to be a Compliance Affidavit in terms of the Order dated 19.08.2025 in S.L.P. Nos. 3
Parties must comply with court orders regarding coal supply agreements, with confirmed entitlements based on established judicial mandates rather than disputed interpretations.
The respondent-CCL must satisfy itself regarding the authenticity of the end use of coal by calling for/inspecting the documents and by physical verification as per Clause 4.4 of the FSA. The princip....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant did not have an accrued right to lift coal under the Scheme as it did not exercise the option to avail the benefit during the pe....
Approval by the Ministry of Coal for modification and change in coal distribution policy influenced the court's decision to direct the return of the bank guarantee amount to the petitioner.
The court affirmed the entitlement of petitioners to interest on withheld amounts, reducing the rate to 12% per annum, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
