Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Appeal Dismissed, Cross-Appeal Allowed: Higher Royalty Rates Tied to Freight Charges, Overpayments Recoverable.</h1> <h3>Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh Versus Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi</h3> The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed. The court held that the higher royalty rates were contingent on reduced freight charges and ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the royalty clause in the mining lease.2. Applicability of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act concerning overpayment of royalties.3. Entitlement to set off overpaid royalties against future payments.4. Mistake of law versus mistake of fact in the context of overpayment.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the Royalty Clause in the Mining Lease:The primary issue was the interpretation of a specific clause in the mining lease dated October 22, 1898. The clause stipulated different royalty rates based on the freight charges for coal transportation. The appellant argued that the higher royalty rate, which became operative due to a reduction in freight charges, was permanent. However, the respondent contended that the higher rate was only applicable as long as the freight charges remained reduced by at least 2 annas per ton. The judgment clarified that the higher royalty rates were contingent upon the reduced freight charges and would revert to the lower rates if the freight charges increased again. The court held that 'the higher rates of royalty shall be payable on coals despatched 'at the said reduced freight' and on no other coal,' meaning the royalty rates were not permanently fixed but varied with the freight charges.2. Applicability of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act Concerning Overpayment of Royalties:The respondent had overpaid royalties based on a mistaken belief that the higher rates were still applicable even after the freight charges increased. The High Court initially ruled that the overpayment could not be recovered as it was a mistake of law. However, the judgment emphasized Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, which states, 'A person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion must repay or return it.' The court determined that Section 72 does not distinguish between mistakes of fact and law, thereby allowing the respondent to recover the overpaid amount.3. Entitlement to Set Off Overpaid Royalties Against Future Payments:The High Court initially ruled that the respondent could not set off the overpaid royalties against future payments. This decision was based on the premise that the overpayment was a mistake of law, which under English law, is generally not recoverable. However, the judgment reversed this decision by applying Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, allowing the respondent to recover the overpaid amount, thereby entitling them to set off the overpayment against future royalties.4. Mistake of Law Versus Mistake of Fact in the Context of Overpayment:The judgment addressed the distinction between mistakes of law and fact. It was argued that under English law, money paid under a mistake of law is generally not recoverable. However, the judgment clarified that Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act does not make this distinction. The court stated, 'Payment 'by mistake' in Section 72 must refer to a payment which was not legally due and which could not have been enforced: the 'mistake' is thinking that the money paid was due when in fact it was not due.' Therefore, the overpayment made by the respondent due to a mistaken belief about their legal obligation was recoverable under Section 72.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed. The court held that the higher royalty rates were contingent upon the reduced freight charges and would revert to lower rates if the freight charges increased. Additionally, the overpaid royalties were recoverable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, allowing the respondent to set off the overpayment against future royalties. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found