Disposed

Salem Food Products Ltd, v. the General Manager

Madras HC11 Feb 2020WP/20270/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the petitioner to obtain a power of attorney from consignors or consignees within two weeks. Upon receipt, the first respondent must refund the excess undercharges of Rs.4,30,403/- within four weeks. The petition was disposed of with costs reserved against none.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to obtain power of attorney within two weeks; directed first respondent to refund Rs.4,30,403/- within four weeks of receipt.

Salem Food Products Ltd, Vs the General… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :11.02.2020 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶3

W.P.No.20270 of 2012

¶4

Salem Food Products Limited Roller Flour Mills No.67/2B, Calicut Main Road, Nethimedu, Salem – 636 002. Represented by its Director P.Jayasankar. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The General Manager, Headquarters Office, Commercial Department, West Central Railway, Jabalpur – 482 001. 2.The Chief Commercial Manager, Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Part Town, Chennai-600 003. 3.The Senior Divisional, Commercial Manager, Southern Railways Divisional Office Commercial Branch, Salem.

¶5

4.The Chief Goods Supervisor Southern Railway Salem Market, Salem. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for an issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.4,30,403/- collected as undercharges at Salem Market in connection with Invoice No.1 to 4, 2, 5, 16, 3, 17 to 20 vide RR No.424571 to 424574, 424601, 424602, 979431, 058173, 718998, 058204 to 058207, dated 18.04.2006, 29.04.2006 and 13.05.2006 at various stations within the limits of West Central Railway to Salem Food Products Limited, Roller Flour Mills, No.67/2B, Calicut Main Road, Nethimedu, Salem – 636 002, the petitioner herein as excess payment collected by Railways.

¶6

1/4

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar

¶9

Standing Counsel (for Railways)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.4,30,403/- to the petitioner, which was collected as undercharges at Salem Market in connection with Invoice Nos.1 to 4, 2, 5, 16, 3, 17 to 20 vide RR No.424571 to 424574, 424601, 424602, 979431, 058173, 718998, 058204 to 058207, dated 18.04.2006, 29.04.2006 and 13.05.2006 at various stations within the limits of West Central Railway to Salem Food Products Limited, Roller Flour Mills, No.67/2B, Calicut Main Road, Nethimedu, Salem – 636 002, which, according to the petitioner, was excess payment collected by the Railways.

¶12

2.It is the case of the petitioner that goods were booked at various stations in Western Railways for Salem Market and the same were delivered to the petitioner in his capacity as consignee at Salem Market. It is the case of the petitioner that undercharges were collected both at the place of origin as well as at the place of delivery at Salem. According to him, only at the place of delivery, undercharges are payable, but the respondents have collected the undercharges at the place of origin also viz.,Itarsi. Since the alleged excess payment has not been refunded, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶13

3.Heard Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel (for Railways) appearing for the respondents.

¶14

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 22.08.1991 sent by the respondents to the petitioner, wherein, it has been admitted that the undercharges were also collected at the forwarding station i.e. Itarsi, though it has to be collected only at the place of destination viz., Salem. According to him, in the said letter, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that neither Consignor nor consignee of the consignment has made the claim and without a valid power of attorney, the petitioner cannot seek refund of the alleged excess payment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, having admitted the liability and considering the fact that the petitioner acted on behalf of the consignees, the respondents ought to have refunded the excess

¶15

2/4

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

payment collected by them towards undercharges.

¶18

5.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the details of the consignments handled by the petitioner and pointed out that excepting for one of the consignments found in Sl.No.4, in respect of the other consignments, neither consignor nor the consignee is the petitioner and they are third parties. According to him, since the refund was not sought for by the consignor or consignee, the respondents rejected the claim of refund made by the petitioner.

¶19

6.DISCUSSION:

¶20

It has not been disputed that the respondents are liable to refund the excess payment collected by them towards the undercharges in respect of the consignments, in which, the petitioner acted on behalf of the consignees. The letter dated 22.08.2011 issued by the Southern Railway to the petitioner acknowledges the fact that they are liable to refund the excess payment collected by them towards undercharges. However, the only condition, which they have mentioned in the said letter for refund, is that the consignor or consignee for each of the consignments, in which, the petitioner acted as agent for them must make a claim for refund or the petitioner must possess a power of attorney from the respective consignors or consignees to enable them to claim refund. In the case on hand, without a power of attorney, the petitioner has approached the respondents for refund of the excess payment collected by them towards undercharges. It is also made clear by the first respondent in his letter dated 26.03.2009 to the counsel for the petitioner that once original money receipts are sent to their office pertaining to the consignments, further process for refund with regard to the excess payment of undercharges will be processed at their end. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, also submits that if a time limit is fixed by this Court, the petitioner will be able to comply with the requirements of the respondents for the refund of the excess undercharges collected by them for the consignments.

¶21

7.For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the petitioner to obtain a power of attorney either from the consignor or consignee and produce the original money receipts for all the consignments to the first respondent to obtain refund of Rs.4,30,403/- collected as undercharges at Salem market in connection with Invoice No.1 to 4, 2, 5, 16, 3, 17 to 20 vide RR No.424571 to 424574, 424601, 424602, 979431, 058173, 718998, 058204 to 058207, dated 18.04.2006, 29.04.2006 and 13.05.2006 at Itarsi and the petitioner is directed to obtain

¶22

3/4

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

the power of attorney from the consignor or consignee within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶25

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VI )

¶27

/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sms
To
1.The General Manager,
Headquarters Office,
Commercial Department,
West Central Railway,
Jabalpur – 482 001.
2.The Chief Commercial Manager,
Headquarters Office
Commercial Branch,
Part Town, Chennai-600 003.
3.The Senior Divisional,
Commercial Manager,
Southern Railways
Divisional Office
Commercial Branch,
Salem.
4.The Chief Goods Supervisor
Southern Railway
Salem Market, Salem.
+1 cc to Mr.P.T.Ramkumar Advocate sr11773
+1 cc to Mr.D.Ashok kumar Advocate sr11740
W.P.No.20270 of 2012

¶28

nrl(co) aa12/03/2020

¶29

4/4

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Salem Food Products Ltd, v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salem Food Products Ltd, v. the General Manager

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

R.Atheeswaran Vs the Sub-Collector

M.N.Selvam Vs The District Collector

Mr.Anandan Vs the Commissioner

Koyyodan Koroth Vs the Appellate Authority

C.Baskar, Vs the Secretary to the

Dr.M.Ilamchelian, Vs the Vice Chancellor