Union of India v. Prakash Industries Limited 2026 INSC 250 -Coal Supply

Here’s the structured information from the judgment you shared:

Basic Case Details

Case name: Union of India v. Prakash Industries Limited and Another

Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 250

Coram (Bench):Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Judgment date: 17 March 2026 (New Delhi)

Connected matters / procedural posture

The judgment is in:

• Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1806–1807 of 2025 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 3529–3530 of 2020
• With Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2111–2112 of 2025 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 3529–3530 of 2020

The original SLP (Civil) Nos. 3529–3530 of 2020 challenged the High Court of Chhattisgarh’s order dated 17.05.2019; the SLPs had been dismissed on 19.08.2025.

Case laws cited

1. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and others, (2014) 9 SCC 516– Cited regarding cancellation of coal blocks, including blocks allotted to the respondent (PIL), leading to their request for normal linkage.
2. Earlier orders in the same litigation (not new external precedents, but important prior orders in this case’s history):
3. • High Court of Chhattisgarh, Single Judge order in W.P. No. 7413 of 2011 (dated 13.02.2012) – quashing SECL’s suspension order dated 09.11.2011 and directing restoration of coal supply and compensation.
   • High Court of Chhattisgarh, Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 127 of 2012 (order dated 31.01.2013) – affirming entitlement to coal supply restoration and compensation (difference between e‑auction price and agreement price with 6% interest).
   • Supreme Court order in SLP No. 8436 of 2013 (order dated 09.04.2014) – modifying compensation into an option for supplying coal at the “current rate” for the suspended period through a fresh Fuel Supply Agreement.
   • High Court of Chhattisgarh order dated 17.05.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 254 of 2018 and connected matters – setting aside SECL’s communication dated 03.05.2014 and the Secretary, Coal’s order dated 31.07.2017, and directing SECL to supply coal at current rates as per prevalent policy.
   • Supreme Court order dated 19.08.2025 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 3529–3530 of 2020 – dismissing the Union/SECL’s challenge and directing compliance, warning of possible contempt for non‑compliance.

(These are all part of the same dispute’s procedural history; only Manohar Lal Sharma is an independent external precedent.)

Three‑sentence brief summary

This judgment arises from long‑running litigation over SECL’s wrongful suspension of coal supply to Prakash Industries Limited under a Fuel Supply Agreement, and whether the company is entitled to monetary compensation or to coal supply at current rates for the suspended period. The Supreme Court holds that, read together, its own earlier order dated 09.04.2014 and the Chhattisgarh High Court’s orders do not create any right to cash compensation for price differences; instead, the Union of India/SECL are bound only to supply coal for the suspended period at the “current price” under the prevalent policy. The Court rejects the miscellaneous applications seeking compensation of about Rs. 106 crore, but directs that SECL must supply coal on normal (not tapering) linkage terms for the suspended period, giving Prakash Industries the option to choose whether “current price/prevalent policy” shall be applied as on 09.04.2014 or 17.05.2019, and mandates execution of a fresh Fuel Supply Agreement accordingly.