Dismissed

N.S.Chandrasekaran v. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Madras HC19 Apr 2023WP/1392/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a hulling agent, challenged an order demanding Rs. 49,536/- for delay in rice supply due to alleged natural calamity. Court found no documentary evidence of loss or rain damage. Writ dismissed directing payment within four weeks. Related money-mandamus petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay Rs. 49,536/- to respondents within four weeks; no interest or penalty.

N.S.Chandrasekaran Vs The Tamil Nadu Civil… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.1392 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.1644 of 2020

¶7

N.S.Chandrasekaran Prop.Sethalakshmi Modern Rice Mill, 2/39-A, Amman Kovil Street, Maathur, Nachiarkovil – 612 602, Via Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Thambusamy Street, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶11

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Thanjavur.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent dated 30.05.2019 in Na.Ka.M.H.4/26294/1999 demanding Rs.49,536/- from the petitioner as hulling agent and quash that order.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram Senior counsel for G.Balasubramaniam For respondents : Mr.V.R.Thiyagarajan

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/7

¶16

ORDER

¶17

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

¶18

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent dated 30.05.2019 in Na.Ka.M.H.4/26294/1999 demanding Rs.49,536/- from the petitioner.

¶19

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of Seethalakshmi Modern Rice Mill, Nacchiarkovil, Thanjavur District. From the year 1981 till 1989, the said rice mill was a hulling agent of T.N.Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC) making a deposit of Rs.25,000/- and the same was not covered by any formal agreement. During the year 1990, the petitioner deposited Rs.75,000/- for hulling agency and furnished Bank guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/- to the State Bank of India, Kumbakonam. As per the hulling agreement the petitioner was appointed as hulling agent for a period of five years by the second respondent. In the year 1993, on account of heavy rain and cyclone, the petitioner's mill got damaged and 30 tons of paddy in the godown got spoiled in rain water. Thereafter, the petitioner bought equal amount of paddy and hulled the same into rice and supplied it to the second respondent. Since there was delay in supplying the turnout of rice from paddy,

¶20

the second respondent demanded a sum of Rs.49,536/- from the petitioner vide

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7

¶22

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

¶23

order dated 18.01.2017 for the loss sustained by the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16460 of 2018 to quash the order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the second respondent. This Court vide order dated 22.03.2018 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, pursuant to which, the first respondent vide order dated 30.05.2019, confirmed the proceedings of the second respondent dated 18.01.2017. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

¶24

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not considered the fact that the entire rice mill got damaged and 30 tons of paddy got wet due heavy rain. Though there being a natural calamity, the petitioner bought equal quantity of paddy drowned in rain water and supplied the rice to the respondents. Hence, the claim made by the respondents demanding a sum of Rs.49,536/- for the delay in supplying the turnout of rice is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7

¶26

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

¶27

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as per

¶28

the terms and conditions the petitioner has entered a contract with the corporation. Hence, if any loss incurred on the part of the petitioner, he is liable to compensate the same. Accordingly, he prayed for passing appropriate orders.

¶29

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶30

6. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a hulling agent of T.N.Civil Supplies Corporation. However, he claims that on account of heavy rain and cyclone, in the year 1993 the petitioner's mill got damaged and 30 tons of paddy in the godown got drenched in rain water causing delay in supplying the rice to the Corporation which resulted the second respondent to demand a sum of Rs. 49,536/- on the petitioner vide impugned order dated 18.01.2017 towards the delay in providing the rice to the Corporation after adjusting the security deposit and interest on the security deposit made by the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 30.05.2019. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶32

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

¶33

though the reason for the said delay being bonafide, demanding a sum of Rs.49,536/- is not sustainable. Though such a stand is taken by the petitioner, there are no materials establish the stand of loss of paddy on account of heavy rain. In the absence of any supporting materials, this Court cannot quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.49,536/- without any further interest or penalty to the respondents within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

7. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

19.04.2023 1/2

¶36

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Nonspeaking order Netrual Citation Case : Yes / No (rap) To

¶37

Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Thambusamy Street, Kilpauk,Chennai – 600 010.

¶38

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Thanjavur.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7

5/7

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

(rap)

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

¶45

19.04.2023

¶46

1/2

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7

¶48

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

¶49

W.M.P.No.1639 of 2020 in

¶50

W.P.No.1392 of 2020

¶51

M.DHANDAPANI ,J.

¶52

Dispensed with for the

present.

19.04.2023 2/2

rap

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7

¶57

7/7

N.S.Chandrasekaran v. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.Chandrasekaran v. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

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

G.Bakthavathchalam, Vs The Executive Engineer

UltraTech Cement Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited

M.Suveathan Vs the State Commission

M/s.Ani Technologies Private Limited Vs Joint Director of GST Intelligence

Maria Jessica Vajoumouny Vs Union of India

E.Varadhan Vs The District Collector