TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of interest on the refund for the period running from 1st January, 2005 to 11th December, 2005, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant herein holding the said demand to be exaggerated. While drawing such inference, the learned Single Judge completely ignored the judgment rendered by this Court in Ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries(P) Ltd. and Ors. [ 2005 (12) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT] wherein a pertinent direction had been given to make the refund of the excess amount with interest @ 12% per annum. Admittedly, as per the affidavit filed by the respondents, the interest which has been applied on the refund amount for the period between 1st January, 2005 to 11th December, 2005 is at the bank rate i.e. 3.5% per annum. Evidently thus, the respondents have failed to faithfully comply with the orders passed by the Jharkhand High Court as well as this Court. Thus, it is hereby directed that the appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the refund amount for the period running from 1st January, 2005 to 11th December, 2005. The interest @ 3.5% per annum, already paid, shall be deducted from the differential amount. The appellant shall also be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue was adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 30th October, 2007 in the case of Somal Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Coal India Ltd. Ors., (Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 100 of 2006). The learned Solicitor General of India made a statement before this Court on behalf of the respondents that the difference of price paid by the party from the period running from 12th December, 2005 to 1st December, 2006 shall be refunded. 7. In view of the above development, the appellant filed an Interlocutory Application No. 4 of 2008 in the pending writ petition seeking a direction to refund of excess price paid over and above the notified price for the period running between January, 2005 till October, 2007 along with 12% interest per annum. 8. Learned Single Judge allowed I.A. No. 4 of 2008 vide order dated 22nd September, 2008 and directed as follows: - We, while accepting the apology tendered by the alleged contemnors, direct as under: i. The petitioners shall furnish all documents to the learned Advocates-on-Record of the respondents, showing the actual payments made to any of the subsidiaries of the Coal India Ltd. and the difference between the amount paid and the amount notified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 11. The Cont. Case(Civil) No. 403 of 2011 was dismissed by the High Court of Jharkhand vide order dated 17th March, 2016, which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. It is admitted that for the period between 12th December, 2005 to 1st December, 2006, the excess amount has been refunded to the appellant. However, the issue regarding the interest payable on the refund amount survives. 13. As per the response in the High Court, the respondents claimed to have refunded an amount to the tune of Rs. 30,80,022/- to the appellant as against the claim of Rs. 65,93,538/- which, as per the authorities, includes the interest towards the period from 1st January, 2005 to 11th December, 2005. 14. The appellant, however, disputes the claim of the respondents that the amount has been paid towards full compliance of the orders passed by the High Court and this Court. It is also asserted by the appellant that refund of excess amount for the period between 1st January, 2007 to March, 2008 is still pending. 15. Learned senior counsel representing the appellant drew our attention to the order dated 12th December, 2005 passed by this Court in a matter involving same controversy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted hereinbelow:- 11. That thereafter this Contempt application was taken up for hearing and the counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that due to some confusion regarding rate of interest the interest could not be paid however the principal amount has been refunded. The Hon'ble Court therefore allow the opposite parties time to calculate the interest at the bank rate and payment be made thereof. 12. That thereafter the opposite parties by their letter dated 30.04.2012 requested their Banker namely the SBI, Bank More, Dhanbad Branch to inform to them the banking rate of interest prevailing during the year 2005 so that the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of the petitioner could be complied with. 13. That the SBI, Bank More, Dhanbad Branch by their letter dated 30.04.2012 informed the opposite party that the banking rate of interest has been 3.5 % with effect from 1.03.2003 and 4% with effect from 3.05.2011. 18. Learned senior counsel urged that the appellant is also entitled to a direction for payment of interest on the amount as well as on the refund due @ 12% per annum as against 3.5% per annum paid by the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Pet. (C) No. 138 of 2007 in C.A. No. 5324 of 2006. While hearing all the contempt petitions together in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 100 of 2006, the Apex Court had passed an interim order on 30. 10. 2007 in following terms: Let the amount deposited by the Coal India Ltd. be invested on a short term fixed deposit for 60 days. It is stated by the learned Solicitor General that Mr. A.P. Singh, General manager (Sales) CCL, has not been able to appear in Court today as his father has expired. His personal appearance is exempted. The learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnors tenders an unqualified apology on their behalf. The learned Solicitor General does not press the other I.As. He also does not press the other contentions raised in the affidavits of the respective alleged contemnors. It is submitted by the learned Solicitor General that the amount paid by the petitioners, in excess of the notified price shall be refunded to them upon verification of the documents which may be submitted in that behalf. We, while accepting the apology tendered by the alleged contemnors, direct as under: (i). The petitioners shall fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of refunding the said amount, now the respondent-opposite party is taking a different stand that the claim for refund of the amount pertaining to the period between January, 2005 to April, 2008 is not tenable as the said amount i.e., 13.4% was a part of notified price w.e.f. January, 2005. No such stand was taken by the respondent-Coal Company before the Supreme Court It cannot be disputed that the power of fixing and notifying price was with the Ministry of Coal and the said power was delegated to Coal India Limited. Hence, any amount cannot be added with the notified price by the subsidiaries of Coal India Limited inasmuch as those subsidiaries were never vested with the power to add any amount in the notified price. It appears that the matter before the supreme Court was in relation to the undertaking given with regard to refund of the amount deposited by the Coal Company in excess of the notified price. 4. Recently a similar question arose with regard to refund of the excess amount deposited by the Coal Company in a writ petition before the Patna High Court being CWJC No. 6530/2009 and the Patna High Court directed refund of the amount collected by the Coal Companies in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Company in an analogous matter. On these grounds, he implored the Court to reject the appeal filed by the appellant. 24. We have anxiously considered the submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material placed on record. 25. At the outset, we may note that the plea of respondents that on account of pendency of SLP(Civil) No. 21888 of 2012 arising from an order passed by the Calcutta High Court, the appellant should be denied the rightful claim of refund of excess amount is misconceived. 26. Suffice it to say that the claim of the appellant for refund pertaining to the third period, i.e. 1st January, 2007 till March, 2008 stands concluded with the rejection of SLP(Civil) No. 21019 of 2010 vide order dated 9th September, 2010 passed by this Court(supra). Admittedly, the appellant has not been refunded the amount for the period running from 1st January, 2007 till March, 2008 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in discharging the respondents in the contempt case without ensuring payment of the refund amount with interest to the appellant herein. 27. The recourse taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order to the pendency of the SLP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
