LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 993 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4927 of 2011) JULY 4, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] A B Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 64-A - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - s. 9 C and Second Schedule - Royalty in respect of mining lease - Levy of interest on arrears of royalty - State Government issued notices demanding interest from respondents-lessees @ 24% p.a. - Respondents filed writ petitions- Single Judge of High Court upheld the demand for interest only to an extent D of 12% p.a. - State Government filed intra-court appeals - Division Bench of High Court held that the order of the Single Judge was a consent order, being based on an admission! concession by the Advocate General, and therefore, it was not open for the State Government to challenge the order of the E Single Judge -Held: From the order of the Single Judge, it is clear that the only submission of the Advocate General before the Single Judge was that the State Government was entitled to interest@ 18% p.a. - The observation in the order that as per the trend of Supreme Court, the State Government F should get interest at least@ 12% p.a. on delayed payments, as awarded in the Supreme Court decision in South Eastern Coalfields, was an observation of the Single Judge, and not a concession by the Advocate General - The order of the Single Judge was thus not based on consent or concession, G but made on merits following the Supreme Court decision in South Eastern Coalfields - It was therefore open for the State Government to challenge the order of the Single Judge if it was of the view that it was entitled to get a higher rate of interest 993 H 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Concession of Advocate/ party. Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 64-A - Royalty in respect of mining lease - Notification increasing the rate 8 of royalty - Respondents-lessees filed writ petition challenging the same - High Court issued interim orders directing the State Government not to take coercive steps to recover royalty at the increased rate - Writ petitions ultimately dismissed - State Government issued demand notices C calling upon respondents to pay interest on the difference in royalty which had been withheld on account of the interim orders and which were belatedly paid, after rejection of the writ petitions - Justification - Held: Whenever there is an interim order of stay in regard to any revision in rate or tariff, unless the order granting interim stay or the final order dismissing D the writ petition specifies otherwise, on the dismissal of the writ petition or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order - Where the statute or contract specifies the rate of interest, usually interest will E have to be paid at such rate - Even where there is no statutory or contractual provision for payment of interest, the court will have to direct the payment of interest at a reasonable rate, by way of restitution, while vacating the order of interim stay, or dismissing the writ petition, unless there are special F reasons for not doing so - Any other interpretation would encourage unscrupulous debtors to file writ petitions challenging the revision in tariffs/rates and make attempts to obtain interim orders of stay - If the obligation to make . restitution by paying appropriate interest on the withheld G amount is not strictly enforced, the loser will end up. with a financial benefit by resorting to unjust litigation and winner will end up as the loser financially for no fault of his - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 144 - Principle of restitution - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - s.9 · H and Second Schedule. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. J.K. SYNTHETICS 995 LTD. & ANR. Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 - Rules 64-A, 31 and A 27 - Royalty in respect of mining lease - Rule 64A providing for levy of interest on arrears of royalty - Word "may" in Rule 64A - Interpretation of - Whether Rule 64-A vests any discretion in the State Government to charge interest at a rate less than 24% p.a. in appropriate or deserving cases - Held: B Word 'may' is used in Rule 64-A not in the context of giving
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.