IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE RESERVED ON: 28.04.2025 DELIVERED ON:06.05.2025 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

MAT NO. 806 OF 2024 WITH I.A. NO. CAN 1 OF 2024 CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS SUNIL SAHA AND OTHERS WITH FMA NO. 735 OF 2024 WITH I.A. NO. CAN 1 OF 2024 REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND OTHERS VERSUS SUNIL SAHA AND OTHERS Appearance:-

Mr. Devajyoti Barman, Adv.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sengupta, Adv.

......For the Appellants [in MAT 806 of 2024 and For the Respondent in FMA 735 of 2024]

Mr. Samrat Chowdhury, Adv.

……For the Appellant [in FMA 735 of 2024 and for the Respondent/CWC in MAT 806 of 2024]

Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Adv.

Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Mr. Neil Basu, Adv.

Mr. Sankha Biswas, Adv.

……For the Respondent/Writ Petitioner JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ.)

1. These intra court appeals are directed against the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in WPA 19546 of 2018 filed by the first respondent in both the appeals who shall hereinafter be referred to as the writ petitioner.

2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellants to release/ disburse the amount deducted from the writ petitioner’s handling and transport bills on account of demurrage charges; to direct the appellants not to withhold any amount as deducted from the writ petitioner’s handling and transport bills on account of demurrage charges amounting to Rs. 1,46,67,382/-. The other reliefs sought for were incidental and ancillary to the main relief.

3. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order allowed the writ petition and directed both the appellants to disburse the amount deducted from the writ petitioner’s handling and transport bills amounting to Rs. 1,46,67,382/- within a timeframe. Aggrieved by such direction, the appellants namely, the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the appellant in MAT 806 of 2024 and the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), the appellant in FMA 735 of 2024 have filed these appeals.

4. The learned Advocate appearing for the FCI contended that there is no privity of contract between the FCI and the writ petitioner and a positive direction to pay a particular sum of money could not have been issued to the appellant, FCI. It is further stated that nowhere the writ petitioner had disclosed as to how the sum of Rs. 1,46,67,382/- was computed and the calculation in that regard was never made known and as such a positive direction to pay the said amount could not have been issued by the learned Writ Court.

5. Nextly, it is contended that the claim made by the writ petitioner is barred by limitation as the deduction towards the demurrage charges was done by FCI from the amounts payable to CWC and the writ petition having been filed in the year 2018 ought to have been dismissed. Further, it is submitted that in the agreement entered into between the writ petitioner and CWC there is an arbitration clause and the writ petition ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable. Further, as disputed questions of fact are involved and the matter is purely a contractual dispute, the writ petition was not maintainable.

6. The learned Advocate appearing for CWC contended that the terms and conditions of the agreement between the writ petitioner and CWC were reduced into writing and such terms and conditions are binding upon the writ petitioner and one such condition being an arbitration clause which would operate as a bar for the writ petitioner to maintain the writ petition. Further, it is submitted that apart from the bills raised by the writ petitioner on CWC, CWC are entitled to levy a service charge of 8% and this amount is claimed from FCI. Further, it is submitted that the facts will clearly disclose that FCI cannot levy demurrage charges and in fact there was assurance at several point