Disposed

Flexo Foam Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Pahuni Jain v. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2025W.P.(C)/13468/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking relief against penalty deductions for seat upholstery damage. The Court directed a hearing to consider the petitioner's replies to Show Cause Notices and mandated a reasoned order, clarifying that the matter was not decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted personal hearing after submitting replies; direction to pass a speaking order upon consideration of all grievances.

Flexo Foam Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13468/2025 & CM APPL. 55344/2025, CM APPL. 55345/2025

¶4

FLEXO FOAM PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PAHUNI JAIN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rajesh Jain, Mr. Virag Tiwari, Mr. Rishabh Jain, Mr. Ramashish, Ms. Tanya Saraswat, Advocates (M:9810042928) Email:[email protected] versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, Ms. Smritika Kesri, Advocates for R-1&2 (M:8860981136) Mr. Himanshu Kumar, Advocate for Respondent no. 4/RITES

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 02.09.2025

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed challenging, inter alia , the legality of the Warranty Rejection Advices (“WRAs”) issued by the Integral Coach Factory (“ICF”), i.e., respondent no. 2, imposing penalties for upholstery (rexine) damage on the petitioner.

¶12

It is submitted that the alleged defect is of non-manufacturing, i.e., damaged or torn rexine due to general wear and tear, misuse and vandalism

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

W.P.(C) 13468/2025

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2025 at 12:33:33

¶17

in the train coaches.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner procures the rexine exclusively from the Research Designs and Standards Organization (“RDSO”) approved vendors, who are subject to rigorous inspections and compliances, with detailed Quality Assurance Plans. 4. It is submitted that despite the same, the petitioner, being the manufacturer and supplier of the seat assembly, is being held accountable for warranty related complaints such as peeling, cracking, or surface damage of rexine.

¶19

It is submitted that the petitioner has been asked to bear the entire cost due to the actions of some third party passengers/miscreants and such acts are beyond the control of petitioner.

¶20

Thus, it is submitted that instead of properly maintaining/looking after the seats by inspection by the concerned persons/officials, or by arranging/beefing up security personnel, respondents have been asking the petitioner to bear the cost of third-party damage.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, vide communication dated 09^th May, 2025 through the Indian Railways E- Procurement System (“IREPS”), requested that a joint inspection be conducted, in accordance with the applicable procedure. The petitioner specifically stated that the alleged defect fell outside the scope of the warranty, as the warranty expressly excludes damages arising from normal wear and tear.

¶22

It is submitted that in response thereto, the respondents on 12^th May, 2025, merely stated that the WR is currently running in the Train No. 15211 between Dharbhanga Junction and Amritsar Junction, without addressing the

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

W.P.(C) 13468/2025

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2025 at 12:33:33

¶26

substantive issues raised by the petitioner.

¶27

It is, thus, submitted that the respondents’ failure to act in accordance with the binding directions contained in their own Circulars, including, Circular dated 17^th October, 2022, constitutes a clear deviation from the established protocol.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Annexure P-24 of the present writ petition, which contains the details of warranty deduction against WRA, to submit that as regards Entry No. 1 of the said Annexure, only 9 berths were stated to be damaged as per the WRA, which costs with a total damage of Rs. 6,230/-. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is being penalized for all the berths in the entire coach. He draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-25 of the petition, to submit that an amount of Rs. 4,71,178/- already stands deducted by the respondents in this regard.

¶29

He further draws the attention of this Court to the Annexure P-24 to show the total penal amount which has been deducted from the petitioner, i.e., Rs. 1,35,44,104/-, against the total cost of Rs. 9,61,403/-.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-3 of the present petition, containing photographs showing the passengers causing harm to the seats and tearing them.

¶31

He further draws the attention of this Court to Annexure P-5 of the writ, which is the Schedule of Technical Requirements for vinyl coated upholstery fabric, and in particular, relies upon Clause 8 pertaining to the warranty, which reads as under:

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

W.P.(C) 13468/2025

“

”

Thus, by relying upon the aforesaid Clause, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the warranty was only against the defective material/workmanship. He submits that no advisory has ever been issued to the petitioner regarding any defective material or workmanship. Thus, he submits that for any damage to the berth, which is in the normal course of wear and tear or by any passenger/hooligan, no penalty can be levied from the petitioner.

¶38

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that a Show Cause Notice dated 26^th June, 2025, followed by a Modification Advice dated 30^th June, 2025, have been issued to the petitioner. He, thus, submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without submitting any reply to the said notices.

¶39

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that replies have already been submitted by the petitioner to the notices. However, no final order has been passed by the respondents.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the replies of the petitioner to the aforesaid notices have already been submitted, the same shall be considered. He submits that all the grievances, as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, shall be addressed at the time of considering the replies of the petitioner.

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

W.P.(C) 13468/2025

¶43

¶44

Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that an authorized representative of the petitioner shall be granted personal hearing at the time of considering the replies of the petitioner.

¶45

Accordingly, the respondents shall issue a notice of hearing to the petitioner on the E-mail of the counsel for the petitioner, which is reflected in today’s order.

¶46

Further, all the issues as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, shall also be considered by the respondents. 21. A speaking order shall be passed pursuant to the hearing granted to the petitioner.

¶47

In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any speaking order passed by the respondents, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek its remedies, in accordance with law.

¶48

It is clarified that the rights and contentions of both the parties are left open. This Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the case, since the grievances of the petitioner are yet to be considered by the concerned authorities of the respondents.

¶49

At the time of hearing, the respondents shall also consider the plea of the petitioner with regard to refund of the amount that has already been deducted from the petitioner.

¶50

Accordingly, with the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of.

¶51

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶52

SEPTEMBER 2, 2025/ au

¶53

Page 5 of 5

¶54

W.P.(C) 13468/2025

¶55

Flexo Foam Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Pahuni Jain v. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Flexo Foam Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Pahuni Jain v. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Manjay Kumar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Indraprastha Services Vs Union of India & Anr.

Bharat Goyal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mekala Naresh Babu Vs Union Public Service Commission through Its Secretary & Anr.

Kanta Kapoor Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

Smt. Gracy Job. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Irrigation and Flood Control Department & Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Tilak Singh Pal

Shahrukh Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Reena Mehra Vs Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Pineview Technology Private Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Ram Krishan and Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Govind Ram Vs Delhi Pinjrapole Society (Regd)

Shama Parveen Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.