COAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS. versus IMENK SOU AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 03-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COAL INDIA LTD. 'AND ORS. 
v: 
!MENK SOU AND ORS: 
'· 
I 
t 
• 
._ 'q 
MARCH 3, 2005 1 • 
' · 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.) 
Interim Order : 
l 
J • ., 
I 
Order of High Court-Stay of-High Court directing personal presence 
C of Secretary, Ministry of coal and Senior Officers of petitioner-Company and 
to produce relevant documents in Court-Stay of order sought pleading that 
copies of documents being already on record, originals would be produced on 
specified date and personal presence of officers be dispensed .with-Held, 
personal presence of named officers stayed-Relevant documents. to be 
D produced by any designated officer or through counsel-Directions given for 
disposal of coal lying in open yard and subject matter of dispute between the 
parties-High Court would dispose of the writ petition expeditiously. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
2061 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order d:ited 7.1.2005 of the Gauhati High 
Court at Itanagar Permanent Bench in W.P.(C) No. 9 (AP) of 2005. 
WITH 
F 
S.L.P: (C) Nos. 2060, 2207, 2210 and 2295 of 2005. 
Mohan Parasaran and A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor Generals, G.L. 
Sanghi, Ajit Kumar Sinha, M.P. Jha, Raj Kishore· Prasad Singh, Ram Ekbal 
Roy and Harshvardhan Jha for the Petitioners. 
G 
Harish N. Salve, Dushyant Dave, C.L. Paney, P.K. Jain, Ankur Chandra, 
Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Rajiv Mehta, B. Aggarwal, Rajiv Malhotra, Parthiv 
Goswami, Devashish Bharuka, Dr. Sushi! Balwadia, Amkur Chawla, Ms. 
Pragya Singh B., R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. B. Goyal, Rakesh Taneja and K.L. 
Taneja for the Respondents. 
H 
490 
\ 
f 
J 
\ --
.,___ 
COAL INDIA LTD. v. IMENK SOU 
491 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
In the above petitions an application has been filed by the Union of 
India seeking stay of the direction dated 1.3.2005 made by the High Court 
of Gauhati in Writ Petition © No. 09 of 2005 and others. By the said order 
the High Court has directed the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry 
of Coal, New Delhi, Chairman, Coal India Ltd., Kolkata and Regional B 
Manager, Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd., Kolkata to appear in person 
before the Court and produce the relevant documents required by the court. 
The learned Solicitor General appearing for the applicant has submitted 
that though the copies of the documents required by the court are already on 
record, still the originais of the same will be made available to the Court as C 
directed by it, hence, personal presence of the officers named herein above 
may be dispensed with. We think on the facts and circumstances of this case 
it is reasonable prayer hence, we direct the officers named in the order of the 
High Court and referred to herein above to direct the production of the 
required documents through any designated officers or through their counsel D 
appearing in the High Court on 8th of March, 2005. We make this order on 
an assurance given by the learned Solicitor General. On that basis we stay the 
direction of the High Court for the personal presence of the above named 
officers of the time being. 
The learned Solicitor General then submitted that nearly 3.4 lacs metric E 
tons of coal is lying in stock in open yard with the North Eastern Coalfields, 
and because of the delay in disposal of the writ petition by the High C<'urt 
the said stock of coal is getting deoxydised, because of which the quality of 
coal is deteriorating. He submitted if the claim of the respondents named 
herein above is to be upheld that Would only require about 8 rakes of coal F 
to satisfy their need hence, North Eastern Coalfields is willing to supply the 
same at the rates prevailing in the month of December, 2004 to the named 
respondents herein subject to the condition that they would file an indemnity 
bond before the High Court undertaking to pay the difference in value in the 
event of their claim failing before the High Court. He also prays that the 
balance stock of c_oal in the North Eastern Coalfields may be permitted to be G 
sold to the highest bidders in 'E' - Auction, to prevent the loss to the said 
Coalfields. We think this is also a reasonable offer, therefore, we direct the 
respondents named herein above, if they so desire to collect such quantity of 
coal which they last purchased from Northern Coalfields, to approach the 
authorities of North Eastern Coalfields land collect the said quantity of coal H 
492 
SUPREME COURT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.