Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Madras High Court Directs PEC Ltd. to Pay Rs. 154.52 Crores in Subsidy Dispute to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation

24 October 2024 8:14 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


On October 23, 2024, the Madras High Court, presided by Justice M. Dhandapani, issued a writ of mandamus directing the Project & Equipment Corporation of India (PEC) Ltd. to pay Rs. 154.51 crores to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC) within 12 weeks. The court ruled that PEC Ltd.’s financial constraints were no excuse for withholding the payment, particularly as the Central Government had already released the subsidy.

Writ Jurisdiction Invoked for Admitted Liability in Subsidy Dispute
The petitioner, TNCSC, filed a writ petition seeking the court’s direction to PEC Ltd. to reimburse the unpaid subsidy of Rs. 154.51 crores. This amount was owed for the procurement of RBD Palmolein Oil under the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS). TNCSC argued that PEC Ltd. failed to release the subsidy amount despite it being admitted, and despite the Central Government having already disbursed the funds.

Respondents’ Claim of Financial Losses Rejected by the Court
PEC Ltd. admitted that it owed TNCSC the amount in question but cited financial difficulties, including substantial losses due to defaults by private companies, which left the organization with a negative net worth of approximately Rs. 1150 crores. Despite these claims, the court held that PEC Ltd.’s admission of liability justified the issuance of a writ of mandamus, stating that PEC Ltd. must release the subsidy funds immediately, regardless of its financial situation.

Availability of Alternative Remedies Does Not Oust Writ Jurisdiction in Admitted Liability Cases

PEC Ltd. argued that TNCSC should have pursued alternative remedies such as arbitration or the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs). However, the court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not barred when there is an admitted liability. It pointed out that arbitration or alternative dispute mechanisms are not necessary when the liability is clear and uncontested.

Unpaid Subsidy for Procurement of Palmolein Oil

The case centered on the procurement of RBD Palmolein Oil by TNCSC under the PDS scheme, which was subsidized by the Central and State governments. Between 2012 and 2013, TNCSC procured the oil from PEC Ltd., which acted as the procuring agency. However, despite the government releasing the subsidy, PEC Ltd. failed to pay the amount to TNCSC, citing financial constraints. Multiple representations and letters from TNCSC to both PEC Ltd. and the Central Government failed to resolve the issue, leading to the present writ petition.

Court Cites Precedents Supporting Writ Jurisdiction in Admitted Liability Cases

In ruling in favor of TNCSC, the court relied on several key precedents, including:

Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107, where the Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction could be invoked even when alternative remedies exist if there is an admitted liability.
Bhaben Construction vs. Executive, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 75, which reinforced the notion that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary power and can be exercised where warranted, despite the availability of other dispute resolution mechanisms.

Admitted Liability: No Grounds for Arbitration

The court dismissed the respondents' argument that TNCSC should have pursued arbitration, ruling that since PEC Ltd. had admitted the amount due, there was no need to invoke arbitration or the CPSE mechanism. The court also pointed out that PEC Ltd.'s repeated admissions, including letters to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, showed that the liability was undisputed.

Court Denounces Delays: Orders Payment Within 12 Weeks

Justice Dhandapani criticized PEC Ltd.'s attempts to prolong the payment by citing financial difficulties, calling these efforts a "vain attempt" to delay the process. He emphasized that the payment of the subsidy was essential for the smooth functioning of TNCSC's public distribution services. The court directed PEC Ltd. to release the entire amount of Rs. 154.52 crores within 12 weeks from the date of the order.

Date of Decision: October 23, 2024
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News