Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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.

Similar News