COAL INDIA LTD. . vs DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS (P) LTD. — C.A. No. 816/2001

Case under Section XVI. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010009422000

Filing Date

13-Jan-2000

Registration No

C.A. No. 816/2001

Diary Number

942/2000

Order Date

15-May-2007

Document Type

Judgment - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XVI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.COAL INDIA LTD. .

    Adv. ANIP SACHTHEY (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS (P) LTD.

    Adv. V. K. VERMA AMIT KUMAR (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2007

    Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 15-May-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 14-Mar-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 08-Feb-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 16-Nov-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 10-Oct-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 17-Aug-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 04-Aug-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 20-Mar-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 08-Dec-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 13-Mar-2003
  13. 13-Jan-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 14-Jan-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 10-Dec-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 05-Oct-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 19-Jan-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 13-Jan-2000

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 816/2001

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Coal India Ltd. v. Domco Smokeless Fuels (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court's mandamus directing Coal India Ltd. to transfer the respondent's coal linkage from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) to Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL), remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The Court found that while CIL's refusal to grant the transfer appeared arbitrary given that a similarly-situated unit received the same relief, subsequent policy changes (shift to e-auction coal sales) and factual developments required comprehensive reconsideration before final adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case