Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Anup Trade And Transport (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges fci's rejection of claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties argue over distance and contract terms. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court examines procedural adherence in claims. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court finds discrepancies in distance assessments. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. court orders recalculation of compensatory payment. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 6. writ petition allowed with no costs ordered. (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing an order dated 26.02.2023, passed by the Disputes/Grievance Redressal Committee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. There is a chequered history involved in this litigation.
3. The Respondent No. 2 had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 30.03.2015, for appointment of regular contractors for transportation of food grains. The Petitioner had submitted its tender for the route against Sl. No. 5, i.e, ex-Railway Siding Salchapra to FCI, FCD, Chandrapur (Tripura), via weighbridge whereby the distance was notified to be 292 KM. The petitioner had submitted its bid @ Rs.2759
Contracts must be honored based on verified terms and conditions; discrepancies in distances stated versus actual must be rectified to uphold contractual integrity.
Contractor had not approached Grievance Redressal Committee and hence, Court, relegated contractor to invoke jurisdiction of Grievance Redressal Committee for ventilating its grievances.
Adopting a different view in matter in facts and circumstances of case would not be permissible in eye of law.
The issuance of a No Demand Certificate validly discharged the contract, and subsequent demands by the Food Corporation of India were arbitrary and illegal.
The court emphasized that bureaucratic processes justify leniency in condoning delays in filing appeals, recognizing that good cause is a lesser standard than sufficient cause.
The unilateral reduction of transportation distance by the appellants was arbitrary, violating contractual obligations as per the tender notice.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate claims regarding freight charges and the route taken for transportation.
There is an offer and acceptance of the terms and conditions of the contract by and between the parties and there was a consensus ad idem, which cannot be altered unless agreed upon by the parties mu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
