Summary
The Court set aside unconditional refund of deposits made to secure interim relief against resale of Kendu leaves. Withdrawal of the purchasers’ writ petitions did not require immediate refund while contractual resale losses remained to be assessed. The deposits were protective court-ordered security rather than automatically forfeitable additional contractual deposits. OFDC was to quantify loss after notice and hearing, make a speaking order and adjust or refund accordingly, subject to challenge before the appropriate forum.
Issues
- Whether withdrawal of writ petitions required unconditional refund of interim-order deposits.
- What procedure governed retention and adjustment against alleged contractual resale losses.
Held
- The deposit imposed after contractual termination could not simply be treated as belated additional security or automatically forfeited. Nevertheless, the corporation’s contractual right to establish and recover resale losses remained intact. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Conditional interim relief protected both parties’ interests. The stay delayed finalisation of resale, and the protective deposit could be retained while resulting loss was assessed through due process rather than first refunded and recovered afresh. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Actual loss involved contested contractual facts that could not be finally adjudicated in these writ-derived appeals. Notice detailing the computation, consideration of responses and a speaking order were required, with the purchasers free to pursue an appropriate legal challenge. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; unconditional refund directions set aside. OFDC to notify loss calculations, hear responses and pass speaking orders within two months of availability of a copy. Deposits to remain fixed and unappropriated meanwhile. Thereafter adjust lawful loss and refund surplus, or pursue any deficit according to law, subject to further challenge and both parties’ contentions. No costs; pending applications disposed of.