Disposed

M/S Sadguru Engineers and Allied Service v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 May 2022WP(C)/2591/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-refund of the 70% waived demurrage charges. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to verify the claim and refund any amount directed by the appellate authority within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to verify the petitioner's claim and refund the demurrage charges payable as per appellate order within eight weeks.

M/S Sadguru Engineers and Allied Service Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010068652022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2591/2022

¶5

M/S SADGURU ENGINEERS AND ALLIED SERVICE OFFICE ADDRESS- ROOM NO-406, 4TH FLOOR, HANUMAN TOWER, S.J ROAD, ATHGAON, P.S- FANCY BAZAR, DIST-KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI781001, ASSAM

¶6

REP. HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY NAMELY MUKESH JALAN

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ADDRESS- 256-A, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI, PIN-110001

¶9

2:THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER FM MALIGAON GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781011 ASSAM 3:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER LUMDING DIST- NAGAON PIN-781447 ASSA

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAMARIA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶13

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Order

¶14

06.05.2022

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R Devi, learned CGC for the respondents.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that the Railway authorities have imposed demurrage charge of Rs.2,11,600/- owing to delay caused for unloading the goods. The petitioner paid the amount on 24.06.2011 and preferred an appeal. The competent authority vide order dated 07.07.2011 waived off 70% of the demurrage charges, which according to the petitioner would come to Rs.1,48,120/-. However, the said amount has not yet been refunded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the aggrieved petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

The petitioner claims that in a similar circumstances relating to some other claim, the petitioner approached this court by way of WP(C) 5336/2020, which was disposed of with the following directions:

¶18

Page No.# 3/4

¶19

“5. The respondent authorities including respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to refund 50% of the demurrage charges as waived vide order no.C/104/484/LM/WD/NGC/445 dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-3) issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (C), Lumding within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the order on the respondent no.2 i.e. the Chief Commercial Manager, NF Railway, Maligaon. “

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner claims that similar order may be passed.

¶21

The order dated 15.02.2022 passed in WP(C) 5336/2020 reflects that one order dated 07.07.2011 passed by the appellate authority directing refund of 70% demurrage charges, was the basis of passing the said order by this court. However, similar annexure (appellate order) is not available in the present writ petition. In this context, Mr. Chamaria relying on annexure 2 of this writ petition submits that similar order was also passed in the present case.

¶22

That being the position and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner, verify the same and if any direction of refund is there by the appellate authority / competent authority, the respondent authority shall pay the same to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the receipt of this order by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Chief Commercial Manager, NF Railway, Maligaon.

¶23

The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this order along with a copy of this writ petition to the respondent No. 2.

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

8. In the aforesaid term, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

M/S Sadguru Engineers and Allied Service v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sadguru Engineers and Allied Service v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Gogoi Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Madhab Ch. Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Phulendra Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors. Vs the Assam State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Mayarani Biswas Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

On the Death of Manik Uddin Ahmed @ Manik Uddin His Legal Heirs Jahanara Begum, Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Arati Bora Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.