SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
M/s Satyam Iron and Steel Co. (P) Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited through its Chief Managing Director and ors. - Respondents
W.P(C) No. 6807 of 2016
Decided On : 03-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate, Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

Proper adherence to termination clauses in contracts is essential; refusal to act on notices can validate claim for refunds.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for refund of bank guarantee and amounts withheld by State-owned corporation - Court emphasized the need for compliance with contractual terms, particularly regarding termination and refund of security deposits in accordance with clauses defined in the Fuel Supply Agreement - Findings included that the agreement was deemed terminated due to lack of response from the corporation within stipulated notice period - Refund of Rs.36,50,000/- and Rs.4,69,656.36/- directed with interest at 7% per annum - Clause on interest highlighted under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code and Interest Act, 1978. (Paras 12, 72, 74, 94)

(B) Contract Law - Obligations of parties in termination notice - Court found that the correct termination process under the Fuel Supply Agreement was not followed by the corporation, justifying the petitioner's claims. (Paras 54, 68)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company operating under the Fuel Supply Agreement with respondents, claimed for the refund of amounts withheld due to suspension of coal supply, leading to alleged financial loss. The agreement was interpreted, with focus on business dynamics and regulatory requirements affecting coal supply.

Findings of Court:
The respondent-CCL must refund the amounts withheld and follow the contractual terms correctly.

Issues: The court addressed issues of contract termination protocols and the entitlements of parties under the Fuel Supply Agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that appropriate notices and responses were necessary for valid termination, ruling that lack of compliance from the corporation led to the termination being valid.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Refund directed with specified interest.

Table of Content
1. the court's jurisdiction under article 226 facilitates the examination of contractual obligations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the fuel supply agreement outline both parties' obligations and timelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. conditions leading to the cessation of coal supplies establish a breach of agreement. (Para 8 , 10 , 12)
4. the court emphasizes proper adherence to contractual terms for termination. (Para 33 , 60 , 66)
5. the court's final ruling mandates the return of sums paid by the petitioner. (Para 73 , 74 , 94 , 96)

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking therein the following reliefs:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to refund/return the bank guarantee amounting to Rs.36,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Six lakhs Fifty thousand) forthwith which the petitioner has submitted as security money while executing the Fuel Supply Agreement with the respondent CCL along with 18% interest.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents release/refund forthwith a sum of Rs. 4,69,656.36/- (Rupees four lakhs, Sixty nine thousand, six hundred fifty six and thirty six paise) which has been deducted from the credit balance of the petitioner maintained with the CCL for Rs.1,21,81,611.64/- (Rupees One crore, Twenty one lakhs, Eighty one thousand, Six hundred eleven and sixty four paise), out of which only a sum of Rs. 1,17,11,955.28/-(Rupees One crore, Seventeen lakhs, Eleven thousand, Nine hundred fifty five and twenty eight paise) was refunded to the petitioner withholding the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs.4,69,656.36/- (Rupees Four lakhs, Sixty nine thousand, Six hundred fifty six and thirty six paise) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to treat the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) terminated/cancel since the petitioner has invoked the provision of Clause 15 of the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) and defaulting period i.e. C.C.L. failed to cure/rectify the breach within the prescribed thirty days’ time rendering the F.S.A. terminated.

(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter dated 27.4.2016 bearing Reference No. CCL/HQ/C- 4/2016/4272-74 Annexure-13) issued under the signature of Senior Manager (S&M), C.C.L. whereby and whereunder it has been informed by the CCL to the petitioner that the matter in regard to suspension of coal to the petitioner's unit has been considered by the respondent authorities and the matter has been resolved, and therefore it was requested by the respondents to start the lifting of coal immediately in terms of Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) which is nonest in the eyes of law taking into consideration the fact that at the time of issuance of this letter/communication, no Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) was existence in between the petitioner and the respondent CCL as the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) dated 16.8.2013 stands terminated at the instance of the petitioner by invoking the Clause 15.1.8 of the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA).

(v) For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Company' Act, 1956 carries on the business as manufacturer of Sponge Iron and having its factory inter-alia at Raniganj, Dist- Burdwan in the State of West Bengal.

4. It is stated that the New Coal Distribution Policy implemented in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top