Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court reduces interest rate for Coalfields, upholds obligations, dismisses appeals.</h1> <h3>SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.</h3> SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS. - 2003 AIR 4482, 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 651, 2003 (8) SCC 648, 2003 (2) Suppl. JT 443, 2003 (8) ... Issues Involved:1. Liability of Coalfields to pay interest to the State Government.2. Liability of the consumers/purchasers to pay interest to the Coalfields for the period without a court restraint order.3. Liability of the consumers/purchasers to pay interest to the Coalfields for the period during which a court restraint order was in operation.Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of Coalfields to pay interest to the State Government:The mining rights granted to the Coalfields by the State Government under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, include provisions for the payment of royalty and interest on delayed payments. Rule 64A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, mandates a simple interest rate of 24% per annum on overdue royalties. The lease agreements executed by the Coalfields incorporate this rule, making the liability to pay interest both statutory and contractual. The court upheld the validity of Rule 64A, stating that the Central Government has the authority to make such provisions under Section 13 of the Act. The Coalfields, having entered into these lease agreements knowingly, cannot later contest their obligation to pay interest. The court cited precedents affirming that parties must adhere to contractual obligations, including interest payments, as agreed upon in their leases.2. Liability of the consumers/purchasers to pay interest to the Coalfields for the period without a court restraint order:The sale of minerals by Coalfields to consumers is governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 61 of the Act allows for the recovery of interest as damages in the absence of a contrary contract. The court emphasized that this principle is based on equity, ensuring that neither the seller nor the buyer unjustly benefits at the expense of the other. The royalty, although paid to the State, is passed on to consumers as part of the price of the minerals. The court held that the consumers' obligation to pay interest on delayed payments is justified, as the Coalfields themselves must pay interest to the State. This ensures that the Coalfields are compensated for the period during which they did not receive the enhanced royalty from the consumers.3. Liability of the consumers/purchasers to pay interest to the Coalfields for the period during which a court restraint order was in operation:The court addressed the consumers' argument that they should not be liable for interest during the period protected by judicial restraint orders. The principle of restitution, which mandates restoring parties to their original position before the court's intervention, was applied. The court explained that interim orders, once reversed, necessitate compensating the party that suffered due to the order. The consumers, having withheld payment under the court's protection, must pay interest to the Coalfields to ensure equitable restitution. The court emphasized that this principle ensures justice and prevents unjust enrichment resulting from interim orders. The court also clarified that the interest awarded in restitution is not governed by the Interest Act but is a standard relief in such cases.Conclusion:The court dismissed all appeals, affirming the High Court's decision to impose a 12% per annum interest rate instead of 24%, considering the prolonged litigation and varying commercial interest rates. The court specified that this concession applies only to the present case and should not set a precedent for overriding Rule 64A. Payments must be cleared within six weeks to benefit from the reduced interest rate; otherwise, the 24% rate will apply. The court's decision ensures that all parties fulfill their contractual and statutory obligations, maintaining fairness and equity in the resolution of the disputes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found