9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of Rule 61 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 in the context of an 'Excess Royalty Collection Contract' entered into by the State Government, specifically regarding the entitlement of a contractor to a grace period for paying dues without interest. Summary: The respondents entered into an 'Excess Royalty Collection Contract' with the State of Rajasthan, agreeing to pay a fixed amount annually in consideration of collecting excess royalty on marble. A dispute arose when the department demanded interest for delayed payments, which was contested by the respondents. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, granting them a grace period of 15 days for payment without interest. The appellants challenged this ruling, arguing that the grace period should only apply for the first ten days of the contract month. Upon careful consideration, the Supreme Court found that while the procedures for Royalty Collection Contracts and Excess Royalty Collection Contracts are similar, they are conceptually different as per the rules. The Court noted that Rule 61 specifically refers to certain types of dues, excluding 'Excess Royalty Collection Contract Amount'. The Court highlighted that the introduction of 'Excess Royalty Collection Contract' as a new concept was not reflected in Rule 61, indicating that the 15 days interest-free period does not apply to such contracts. The Court also addressed the contention regarding the amendment of Rule 61 to increase the interest rate, clarifying that a subsequent dispute over interest rate adjustments does not alter the interpretation of the rule itself. The State's argument that Rule 61 is inapplicable to 'Excess Royalty Collection Contracts' was upheld, leading to the decision to set aside the High Court's judgment and uphold the demand for interest at 12% per annum without applying the 15 days grace period under Rule 61. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstated the trial court's decision, and upheld the demand for interest on delayed payments related to the 'Excess Royalty Collection Contract'.
|
