PUJA FERRO ALLOYS P.LTD. v. STATE OF GOA AND ORS.
Discusses res judicata, promissory estoppel, and public interest, providing valuable insights into these legal principles.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 217
Decision Date: 14-02-2025
List of Laws
Indian Electricity Act, 1910; General Clauses Act, 1897; Constitution of India, 1949; Goa (Prohibition of Further Payments and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; General Principles of Law
- Indian Electricity Act, 1910: The judgment refers to Section 23 read with Section 51-A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. These sections were the basis for the State of Goa's notification dated 30.09.1991, which determined tariff for industrial units availing High-Tension or Low-Tension power supply, entitling them to a 25% rebate. The judgment also mentions Section 23 read with Section 51-A of the 1910 Act as well as Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in relation to the notification dated 31.03.1995, which rescinded the earlier notification dated 30.09.1991, effective 01.04.1995.
- General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is mentioned in conjunction with Section 23 and Section 51-A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, concerning the notification dated 31.03.1995. This notification rescinded the earlier notification dated 30.09.1991, which provided for a rebate on electricity tariff. The judgment does not delve into a detailed interpretation of Section 21 itself, but its relevance is in the power to rescind notifications.
- Constitution of India, 1949: Article 166(3) of the Constitution is mentioned in relation to a High Court decision [Manohar Parrikar v. State of Goa] where notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 were challenged. The High Court allowed the writ petition due to non-compliance with the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3), declaring the notifications non-est and void ab initio.
- Goa (Prohibition of Further Payments and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002: Section 3 of the Goa (Prohibition of Further Payments and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002, is discussed. This section specifies that any person or industrial consumer in the State of Goa who has already availed the benefits of 25% rebate in pursuance of the Government notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 would be liable to refund the amount. The respondents sought recovery from Puja Ferro under Section 3 of the 2002 Act. The Court also refers to Goa Glass Fibre Limited v. State of Goa & Anr., where it was held that the object of the 2002 Act is to recover and extinguish all liabilities of the State of Goa that accrue or arise from the notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996. The appellant-companies argued that Section 3 of the 2002 Act does not apply to them as their claim is governed by the notification dated 30.09.1991.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mentioned in relation to the challenge to the common order dismissing the review applications. The court held that no appeal lies against an order of rejection of a petition for review. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mentioned in the context of res judicata.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment extensively discusses the principle of res judicata, citing Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi and Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board. It explains that res judicata prevents parties from relitigating the same question and is based on public policy and justice. The judgment also touches upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel, particularly in the context of whether the State of Goa is estopped from resiling from the rebate granted to the appellant-companies. The principle of public interest is also discussed as a factor that can override promissory estoppel.
🔒 For Members Only