- (1.) By an interim order dated 3-1-1994, this Court directed (i) furnishing of Bank guarantee for the amounts in respect of the difference in regard to past dues; (ii) payment of duty for the period subsequent to 1-1-1994 on condition that the said amount shall be kept in a separate bank account in interest-earning deposits; and (iii) if the respondents succeed in the writ petitions, the amount together with interest should be refunded to the respondents. Admittedly the High Court by its judgment dated 26-4-1994* allowed the writs and this Court affirmed that order by its decision dated 21-4-1995. Ordinarily, therefore, under the Court's order dated 3-1-1994 the respondents would be entitled to refund.
(2.) However, the language of this Court 's order dated 21-4-1995 is relied upon to deny the refund since it said:(Para 15) "In our opinion, the amount do collected may be refunded to person entitled to the same, within a period of one year from today, failing which they should pay interest at 18% p. a. on expiry of one year." Emphasis is laid on the word "entitled" to say that the respondents are not entitled to refund. In this connection, our attention was also invited to our subsequent order dated 11-8-1995 whereby pending determination of the dispute Mahanadi was ordered to deposit the amount of the difference within three weeks, which deposit we understand has come to be made. A separate statement was also required to be filed in regard to those who were granted refunds. This is evident from the affidavit of Kumarendra Nath, General Manager (Finance), which shows that the company had deposited Rs. 49.22.68.098.89 by two separate Demand Drafts, Appended to the affidavit is a statement marked Appendix 'A' which shows the amounts collected from purchasers/consumers of coal together with interest due thereon minus the amount refunded between 21-4-1995 and 11-8-1995. Appendix 'B' is a statement showing the amount refunded/adjusted towards the sale price. The total amount Rs. 4,34,32,498 is shown to have been refunded/adjusted.
(3.) We see no merit in the objection raised. We consider it to be frivolous. The submission that the refund must be refused because it would amount to 'unjust enrichment' cannot be countenanced since this Court's order dated 3-1-1994 in no uncertain words provided that on the respondents succeeding in the writ petitions, they shall, without any other condition or stipulation, be granted refund together with accrued interest. By our order of 11-8-1995, we secured the amount by directing Mahanadi to deposit the amount in this Court subject to their contentions. Accordingly the amount of Rs. 49,22,68,098.89 came to be deposited on 31-8-1995.;