LexKOPARGAON S.S.K. LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A contending that the dispute had already been settled between the parties by the High Court. During pendency of the writ petition, respondents withdrew the demand, stating that such demand was made erroneously. Despite the withdrawal of the demand, High Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis of judgment in Deokar Distillery B case. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court ~- i t ~ I \. I ... r ~ . HELD:1.1. Appellant in the previous writ petition, >..- indisputably questioned the right of the respondents to C recover the supervision charges with retrospective effect. , It was contended therein that no interest was payable on the said charges. The said writ petition was allowed opining that the difference in payment of supervision charges was not recoverable. The order of the High Court attained finality. It would, therefore, operate as resjudicata. D [Para 14] (1279-E-G] 1.2. It is not correct to say that the demands were for different charges, namely, one in respect of pay and the other in respect of leave salary etc. The basis for both the claims was the same. The principle of res judicata applies E in a writ proceeding. No fresh demand could have been raised by the respondents. The demand notices, therefore, are quashed. [Paras 15 and 18] (1279-H; 1280- A; 1281-G] /shwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. (2005) F 7 SCC 190 and Swamy Atmananda and Ors. V. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 51, relied on *Maharashtra and Ors. v. Deokar's Distillery (2003) 5 sec 669, referred to G Case Law Reference: (2003) 5 SCC 669 Referred to Para 8 (2005) 7 SCC 190 Relied on Para 15 (2005) 10 SCC 51 Relied on Para 16 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal ~os. H 7412-7413 of 2008. \ . KOPARGAON S.S.K. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1273 & ORS. From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.9.2003 and A 13.11.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench • ~ at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 3050 of 2003. WITH .. C.A.Nos. 7414-7415 of 2008. Arvind V. Savant, Arvind S. Avhad, S.D. Autade, Chandan B , Ramamurthi and Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellant. Chinmoy Khaladkar, Asha Gopalan Nair and T. Raja for the ,.. > Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 23.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.3050 of 2003 declining to entertain the writ petitions filed before it. o 3. Appellant has been granted licence for manufacturing spirit and potable liquor in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder. Respondents, indisputably, posted some of its employees for supervision of the manufacure or sale of country E liquor from the said factory. - 4. A demand was raised for a sum of Rs.7,43,686/-. Admittedly, such supervision charges have been paid in advance. The State, however, revised the salary of its employees with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 by F Notification dated 10.12.1998 for the period 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998. A communication dated 17.6.2000 was issued calling upon the appellant to pay the arrears of supervision charges for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.12.2000 amounting to Rs.7,43,666/- 5. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said claim, a writ petition (No.4092 of 2000) was filed before the Bombay High Court by the appellant praying for, inter alia, the following reliefs: G "(B) Hold and declare that the demand notice dated H 1274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A 17.6.2000 and August 2000 and the circular dated 17.6.1999, 30.7.1999 issued by the Respondents .. '> 2, and the demand notice issued by the \-- , Respondent No.3 dated 17.6.2000 towards the difference in the salary and wages, w.e.f'. 1.1.1996 B i.e., retrospective effect towards the supervision charges is therefore illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and therefore strike down the same. (C) Issue a Writ prohibition or any other appropriate A-_.. c Writ, order or directions in the nature of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, their officers and subordinates from demanding and/or recovering any amount towards the salary and wages with retrospective effect from 1.1. 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.