Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand

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