Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Apeejay Infra Logistics Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5558 of 2020, 5559 of 2020, 5568 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 20064 of 2020, 20067 of 2020, 20116 of 2020
Decided On : 28-09-2020
Dayan Krishnan, Advocate, Ashish Verma, Advocate, Manish Srivastava, Advocate, Hardik Vashisht, Advocate, Amrita Prakash, Advocate, Ruchir Mishra, Advocate, Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, Ramneek Mishra, Advocate, Amit Bansal, Advocate, Aman Rewaria, Advocate, Vipasha Mishra, Advocate
The court clarified the scope of its previous judgment and left open the rights and contentions of the parties with regard to the quantification of cost recovery charges.
Headnote:
Cost Recovery Charges - Challenge to Quantification - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the cost recovery charges for certain years, clarifying that the issue of quantification was not decided in a previous judgment. The rights and contentions of the parties with regard to the quantification were left open.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions challenged the cost recovery charges for specific years, with the petitioner seeking to challenge the quantification of the charges on grounds other than those mentioned in a previous petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the present writ petitions in light of a previous judgment, clarifying that the issue of quantification was not decided in the previous case. The rights and contentions of the parties with regard to the quantification were left open.
Issues: Challenge to cost recovery charges for specific years, clarification on the issue of quantification, and the petitioner's wish to challenge the quantification on different grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the previous judgment, which did not decide the issue of quantification. The court clarified that the rights and contentions of the parties with regard to the quantification were left open.
Final Decision: The present writ petitions were dismissed, but the rights and contentions of the parties with regard to the quantification of cost recovery charges were left open.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the cost recovery charges for the years 2017, 2018 and 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the parties admit that an identical writ petition filed by the petitioner itself being W.P.(C) 5581/2016 challenging the cost recovery charges for the financial years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and upto November, 2015 for financial year 2015-2016 on similar grounds has been dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 24th September, 2020.
4. However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner wishes to challenge the quantification of the cost recovery charges on grounds other than those mentioned in W.P.(C) 5581/2016.
5. This Court clarifies that it has not decided the issue of quantification of cost recovery charges in W.P. (C) 5581/2016.
6. Keeping in view the said judgment dated 24th September, 2020, present writ petitions stand dismissed. However, it is clarified that the rights and contentions of the parties with regard to the quantification are left open.
7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
