IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NOS. 5-6 in TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO. 113 OF 2005

NIFTY CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.   … PETITIONER (S)

: VERSUS :

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.   … RESPONDENT (S)

O R D E R

Two applications have been filed, one jointly by  M/s. Trimurtiy Moulds Pvt. Ltd., Coventry Stonewares  Pvt.  Ltd.,  Vidharbha  Ceramics  Pvt.  Ltd.  and  Ceramic  Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. which is registered as I.A.  No. 5/2009 and the other by M/s. Western Coalfields  Limited which is registered as I.A. No. 6/2009.  We  have  heard  Mr.  M.L.  Verma,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing on behalf of the M/s. Trimurty Moulds Pvt.  Ltd.  as  also  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Western Coalfields Limited, on both these applications.

The applicants – M/s. Trimurti Moulds Pvt. Ltd. by  filing  the  said  application  have  sought  for  clarification and/or modification of the order passed  by this Court on 27.2.2009, particularly with regard to  the payment of interest and with regard to the payment  of  additional  amount  payable  due  to  increase  in  E-

auction  price.    It  is  pointed  out  by  the  learned  senior counsel that while passing the said order this  Court directed for payment of interest accrued on the  amount payable to the applicants, to be computed only  upto 28.6.2008 while the amount came to be actually  refunded  to  the  applicants  on  25.7.2008.    He  has  brought  to  our  notice  the  documents  on  record  in  support of the said contention.  On going through the  same, we are satisfied that such interest accrued on  the amount payable should be computed upto 25.7.2008  for  it  appears  to  us  that  the  said  amount  was  not  refunded  on  28.6.2008,  as  alleged  but  was  paid  subsequently as the cheques for payment were made ready  on 24.7.2008.  We order accordingly as there was a  mistake apparent on the face of the records.

The second contention raised by the learned senior  counsel is with regard to the additional amount payable  due to increase in E-auction price.   Our attention has  been  drawn  to  the  affidavit  filed  by  M/s.  Western  Coalfields Limited which is annexed to the application  filed herein.   In this connection we would like to  extract the contents of paragraphs 12 & 13 of the said  affidavit, which read as follows:-

“12.    That  because  of  non-deposit  of  additional  amount  due  to  increase  in  e- auction  price  in  the  subsequent  months,  WCL therefore, adjusted the quantity and  value thereof was kept in fixed deposit.  WCL is of the view that the said amount  also  need  to  be  refunded  to  the  said  

2

parties  including  interest  accrued  thereupon. A list of such parties given in the chart  is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- D. Further cases of the parties who have also  deposited  the  additional  amount  due  to  increase  in  the  e-auction  price  and  are  also  entitled  to  refund  along  with  interest. A list of such parties given in the chart  is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure  E.

13. It  is  submitted  that  this  Hon’ble  Court may be pleased to pass appropriate  orders/direction to refund the said amount  to  the  parties  mentioned  in  the  chart  enclosed herewith as Annexure D & E. The said amount will be refunded to the  parties  as  directed  by  this  Hon’ble  Court.”

A bare reading of the same would indicate that  M/s.  Western  Coalfields  Limited  itself  accepted  the  position that  the additional amount payable due to  increase in the E auction price is to be refunded to  the applicants.

Mr.  Verma  states  that  the  amounts  which  are  required to be refunded to the applicants appear at  Page 46 & 47 of the paper book, wherein as against the  name of Ceramic Industries (India), the total amount  shown  to  be  refunded  is  Rs.  82,831.98,  as  against  Coventry Stonewares Pvt. Ltd. the total amount is Rs.  6,36,875.88, as against Trimurti Moulds Private Limited  

3

the  total  amount  is  Rs.  9,41,983.96  and  as  against  Vidharbha  Ceramics  Pvt.  Ltd.  a  total  amount  of  Rs.  5,27,254.84 is shown to be outstanding.

In view of the aforesaid statement made in the  affidavit filed by the Western Coalfields Limited, we  direct  that  the  amounts  as  stated  above  shall  be  refunded to the applicants within six weeks from today,  but the said payments shall be without payment of any  interest.

I.A. No. 5 filed by M/s. Trimurti Moulds Pvt. Ltd.  & Ors. stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid  terms.

We now proceed to dispose of I.A. No. 6/2009 filed  by  M/s.  Western  Coalfields  Limited.    In  this  application the said coal Company has pointed out that  in the order dated 27.2.2009 passed by us, there was a  direction to the coal Company to pay the amount towards  interest accrued on the fixed deposits, at the rate of  12% per annum on the excess deposit in the High Court.  It is pointed out that this Court directed that the  amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit and  that the said Coal Company is ready and willing to pay  interest at the rate which it received from the Bank on  the said fixed deposit account. We find this prayer to  be bona fide, just and proper.  If the interest rate  received from the bank against fixed deposit account  

4

was less then they cannot be directed to pay interest  at a higher rate.

We, therefore, modify our order dated 27.2.2009 to  the extent aforesaid and order that interest shall be  paid on the amount which is refunded to the applicants  being the amount kept in the fixed deposit account, at  the same rate at which the coal Company received the  interest from the bank.

The  next  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. is that by the order dated  27.2.2009  passed  by  this  Court,  the  issues  raised  before  the  High  Court  in  the  writ  petition  pending  before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court have  been enlarged and expanded.  We have heard Mr. Verma,  learned senior counsel also on the aforesaid issue.  He  has submitted that the order dated 27.2.2009 passed by  us does not in any manner enlarge the scope of the writ  petition.

However, it is needless to state that the writ  petition which is pending before the High Court was  never  ordered  to  be  transferred  to  this  Court.  Therefore, it was never the intention of this Court to  expand or enlarge the scope of the issues raised in  that  writ  petition  nor  the  same  could  be  done.  Whatever issues have been raised by the parties in the  said writ petition pending before the High Court, would  be the only issues which will be argued, considered and  

5

disposed of by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court on  their own merits.

I.A. No. 6/2009 is disposed of in the aforesaid  terms.

I.A. No. 2 in T.C. (C) No. 115/2005, I.A. No. 5 in T.C.  (C) No. 117/2005, I.A. No. 2 in T.C. (C) No. 118/2005,  I.A. No. 3 in T.C. (C) No. 119/2005, I.A. No. 3 in T.C.  (C)  No.  120  of  2005,  I.A.  No.  3  in  T.C.  (C)  No.  121/2005 and I.A. No. 4 in T.C. (C) No. 122/2005 are  also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed  by us in I.A. Nos. 5 & 6 of 2009 above.

  ……………………………………… ……….J

  (S.B. SINHA)

 ….…………………………………… ……….J

(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 3, 2009.

6