RAMESH ENTERPRISES ETC versus COFFEE BOARD

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 07-12-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH ENTERPRISES ETC. 
v. 
COFFEE BOARD 
DECEMBER 7, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ, P.B. SAWANT AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Coffee Act, 1942/Coffee Rules, 1955: Auction sale-Terms and 
conditions-Clause JO-Increase or reduction in duty within 45 days 
from date of auction-Equally shared by purchasers and Coffee 
Board-Date of auction-Whether includible within the 45 days. 
The appellants, exporters under the provisions of the Coffee Act, 
1942 and Coffee Rules, 1955 used to participate in the auction con-
ducted by Respondent Board and purchase coffee for export. The terms 
and conditions of the auction sale are fixed by the Board. In respect of 
A 
B 
c 
an auction held on 18.5.1977, some dispute arose on the interpretation D 
of clause 10 of the terms and conditions. As per this clause, any increase 
or reduction in duty effected within 45 days from the date of the auction 
inclusive of that date was to be shared equally between the Respondent 
Board and the anction pnrcbasers, with a view to fixing the reserve 
price below which the specific lot of coffee was not to be sold at the 
auctiom 
E 
When the anction was held on 18.5.1977, the Respondent Board 
took into consideration the dnty which existed till 17.5.1977. However, 
on 18.5.1977, the date on which the anction was held, there was a 
reduction in duty. thereafter, the Respondent-Board sent a circular to 
all the registered exporters demanding refund of the proportionate F 
amount of reduced duty as per clause 10 of the terms and conditions. 
Accordingly, the exporters including the appellants refunded 50% of 
the reduction in the duty. After making the payment, the appellants 
wrote to the Respondent-Board asking for the return of the amount so 
paid on the ground that since there was already a reduction in duty on 
the date of the auction, it cannot be said that there was a reduction in G 
duty within 45 days from the date of auction. The Respondent-Board 
refused to refund the amount, as according to it, the reduction in duty 
was effected on 18.5.1977 by the authorities and neither the Respon-
dent-Board nor the purchasers were aware of the same at the time of the 
auction, and that the date of auction was includible within the period of 
45 days mentioned in clause 10. 
H 
495 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants filed Writ Petitions in the High Court seeking 
direction to the Respondent-Board to repay the amount paid by them. 
The Writ Petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge on the ground of 
maintainability. He also held that since 45 days were to be counted 
including 'the day of auction, the Respondent-Board was entitled to 
proportionate reduction in duty. The Division Bench confirmed the 
B same. 
Aggrieved. the appellants preferred appeals by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1. An increase or reduction in duty made on the day of 
C auction is also shareable between the parties. The purpose of including 
the day of auction in the period of 45 days, contrary to the manner of 
computation of time in the General Clauses Act, is obvious and is 
brought home more prominently by the present instance itself. [501B-D] 
D 
2. Clause IO of the Terms and Conditions categorically states that 
any increase or reduction in taxes, duties etc. within 45 days of the 
auction (inclusive of the day of the auction) shall be shared between the 
auction purchasers and the Respondent-Board. Neither the Board nor 
any of the auction purchasers was aware of the reduction in ex~rt duty 
for which a communication was issued on 18th May, 1977 the date of 
E auction itself. The board had fixed the reserve price on the basis of the 
export-duty which was prevalent till 17th May, 1977, the day prior to 
the date of auction. The imposts keep on changing and none of the 
parties has a control either over their variation or over the time of their 
variation. The dates of auction have necessarily to be fixed in advance. 
It is to obviate the hardship or to grant the necessary benefit, as the case 
F may be, that purposely the period of 45 days laid down In clause 10 is 
stipulated to include the day of the auction as well. [500E-H; 501A] 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 5965-66 
of 1990. 
From the Judgment and order dated 3.11.1989 of the Karnataka 
High Court in W.A. Nos. 1917 and 2028 of 1984 respectively. 
Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan for the Appellants. 
G. Ramaswamy, M. Karanjawala, R.J. B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.