The supreme court court overturned the high court’s order to dismiss the contempt application due to noncompliance.
Case title: Domco Smokeless Fuels Pvt Ltd vs State Of Jharkhand
Case no.: SLP(Civil) No(s). 34194 of 2016
Decided on: 22.02.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta
Hon’ble Justices stated 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. 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.”
BRIEF FACTS:
In an online auction run by the respondent, the appellant alleges to have paid more than the price announced in exchange for the lifting of coal shipments. After the coal was removed, the appellant and other similarly situated companies sought a refund of the amount they paid in excess of the notified price. However, the appellant’s request for a refund was denied, so it filed a Writ Petition in the Jharkhand High Court, claiming a refund of the excess price paid by it over and above the notified price for the respondent Company’s e-auction of lifting coal consignments.
The appellant filed a case for the violation of order passed in Writ Petition by the High Court of Jharkhand, citing non-payment of the amount collected in excess of the notified price as well as interest.
The appellant has approached this Court to challenge the order issued by the Single Judge bench of the High Court of Jharkhand, which dismissed the appellant’s contempt application alleging noncompliance with the court’s order.
COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
The court stated on the high court’s order that the appellant had not received the refund for the period from January 1st, 2007 to March 1st, 2008, and that the learned single judge was therefore not justified in dismissing the respondents in the contempt case without guaranteeing that the appellant would receive the refund amount plus interest.
The court allowed the appeal, ruling that the respondents failed to diligently comply with orders issued by both the Jharkhand High Court and this Court. As a result, it hereby orders that the appellant be entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the refund amount from January 1st, 2005 to December 11th, 2005. The already paid interest of 3.5% per annum will be taken out from the differential amount. The appellant is also entitled to a refund of the excess amount paid from January 1, 2007 to March 1, 2008, with interest at 12% per annum, in the same terms provided by this Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith
