The Supreme Court in a recent decision (Harprit Singh Anand vs State of West Bengal) has adopted a pragmatic approach in dealing with a matrimonial dispute by directing conclusion of multifarious procedures when the parties before the court decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. There were several criminal proceedings pending between the parties but when a petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed before the Supreme Court, the court observed that “in view of the fact that marriage between parties has broken down irretrievably, it is necessary to put a quietus between to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigations…”.

An executive direction cannot nullify the order of the court. In a case involving Central Dairy Farm (a public sector enterprise of the UP government) and Glindia Limited, there was an agreement under which Glindia was to supply cream and paneer at a stipulated rate. The milk commissioner of UP had later on passed an order directing Glindia cream and paneer at a rate lower than the one agreed upon. This fixation of ceiling price was successfully challenged by Glindia before the Allahabad High Court, and the order of the milk commissioner was quashed. Thereafter, the authority under the UP Milk Act issued a fresh notification fixing the supply price of cream and paneer at a rate lower than the one that was being supplied by Glindia. This notification was also quashed by the Allahabad High Court and Central Dairy Farm thereafter took the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the high court judgment.

When the state hides royalty rate on coal companies, they are entitled to recover from the consumers interest at reasonable rate. In the case of South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs State of MP & Ors, the Supreme Court has held that the amount of royalty as well as interest is recoverable by the coal companies from its consumers.

SOLON