Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Supreme Court Directs Refund with 12% Interest on Excess Payment for Coal Consignments, Cites Misconception by High Court in Contempt Case Dismissal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the Jharkhand High Court's decision dismissing a contempt application related to the non-compliance of orders for the refund of excess payment made for coal consignments. The apex court's judgement, delivered by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta on February 22, 2024, categorically directs the refund of the overpaid amount along with an interest rate of 12% per annum, underscoring the High Court's misconception in handling the contempt proceedings.

Legal Point of Judgement: The key legal issue revolved around the enforcement of court orders directing the refund of excess amounts paid over the notified price for coal consignments in an e-auction. The Supreme Court scrutinized the non-compliance with its previous orders and the High Court's dismissal of the contempt application filed by M/S. Domco Smokeless Fuels Pvt. Ltd.

Facts and Issues: The appellant, M/S. Domco Smokeless Fuels Pvt. Ltd., had initially approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking a refund for the excess amount paid over the notified price in an e-auction for coal consignments. Despite orders by the High Court and the Supreme Court, there was a failure in compliance, leading to contempt proceedings. The High Court's dismissal of these proceedings was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court.

Court Assessment and Observations: The Supreme Court meticulously assessed the details of the case. It noted that the claim for a refund for the period from January 2005 to October 2007, along with 12% interest per annum, had been established but not adhered to. The Court observed, "The recourse taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order to the pendency of the SLP before this Court, arising from an order passed by the Calcutta High Court was absolutely unfounded as the issue inter se between the parties herein, has already been concluded by this Court." This highlighted the High Court's error in understanding the scope and extent of the Supreme Court's previous directions.

Decision: The Supreme Court directed the refund of the excess payment made by the appellant, along with interest at 12% per annum, deducting the interest already paid at the rate of 3.5% per annum. It also set a two-month deadline for this payment, failing which, the officers concerned would be held personally liable. This decision not only rectifies the non-compliance with earlier court orders but also emphasizes the importance of adherence to judicial directives.

Date of Decision: 22nd February 2024

M/S. Domco Smokeless Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Latest Legal News