Apart from this, numberother issue was raised in the said letter.
56.80 crores.
The Government companystituted a companymittee chaired by Dr. Y.K. Alagh hereinafter the Alagh Committee for the purpose of reassessing the production capacity of such fertilizer units.
The Litigation A Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
On 8.8.2002, the First Appellant addressed a letter to the FIC Committee, giving particulars as to the repairs and maintenance charges incurred for the years 1997 98 to 2000 01.
Thereafter, the representatives of the First Appellant Company were informed that based upon information received by the FIC Committee, certain items of expenditure were disallowed while finalizing the Retention Price for the Seventh and Eighth pricing periods, as these were number related to urea activity.
It also raised the issue with regard to disallowance of the bank charges for Base Years 1997 98 and 1999 2000.
43934/2001 was moved by the appellants in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to challenge the interim revision of Retention Price made on 5.11.2001 and the companysequent demand raised upon the First Appellant on 13.11.2001 for recovery of Rs.184.01 crores under the Scheme.
As far as the First Appellant was companycerned, one such meeting was held on 7.8.2002 at 230 PM, which was attended by the Managing Director and General Manager Finance of the First Appellant Company.
This Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 7.11.2003.
43042/2002.
The question to be answered in this case is whether the scheme of subsidies known as the Retention Price Scheme granted by the Respondent Union of India hereinafter the Government to fertilizer manufacturers, companyld be retrospectively modified to the detriment of these manufacturers.
The appellants challenged the working of the Retention Price Scheme by Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
A Civil Miscellaneous Application No.
12164 of 2004.
By another order dated 7.11.2003, following the impugned judgment, the High Court also dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
The Minutes of this meeting show that the Executive Director of the FIC Committee broadly explained the aspects on which the Retention Price had been worked out for the Seventh and Eighth pricing periods to the representatives of the First Appellant Company.
6297/2004 With Civil Appeal No.1074/2006 SLP C No.
127.21 crores by way of adjustments, leaving a balance of Rs.
On the question of payment of subsidy for the month of January 2002, it was stated in the order itself that it would be subject to the Governments power of revision, review and recovery of excess payment, if exercised, in the future.
56.80 crores be made in 10 monthly instalments, subject to disposal of a representation made by the appellants.
40383/2002 was taken out by the appellants for interim relief, which was disposed of by an agreed order.
/2006 CC No.
The Retention Prices were also reduced with effect from 1.4.2000, on an interim basis.
A perusal of the agreed order made on 3.4.2002 does number indicate that there was any challenge to the manner of companyputation of the Retention Price, but only suggested that the recovery of the balance amount of Rs.
18242/2002 dated 25.7.2003 .
Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
Although, the appellants had filed the Writ Petition sometime in 2001, it was actually moved in 2002, by which time the Government had recovered Rs.
12164/2004 SRIKRISHNA, J. Delay companydoned in the Special Leave Petition arising out of CC No.
In the process of finalizing the Seventh and Eighth pricing period, there were detailed discussions held in a meeting between the Governments officials and authorized representatives of the fertilizer manufacturing units.
