Surya Alloy Industries Limited vs South Eastern Railway And Ors on 21 April, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Surya Alloy Industries Limited vs South Eastern Railway And Ors on 21 April, 2025

Author: Shampa Sarkar

Bench: Shampa Sarkar

OCD 5

                            ORDER SHEET
                          AP-COM/304/2025
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                        COMMERCIAL DIVISION


                    SURYA ALLOY INDUSTRIES LIMITED
                                  VS
                    SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY AND ORS.



 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
 Date: 21st April, 2025.

                                                                       Appearance:
                                                      Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Adv.
                                                          Mr. Farhan Ghaffar, Adv.
                                                              Mr. Kallol Saha, Adv.
                                                            Mr. Akash Ghosh, Adv.
                                                                 ...for the petitioner

                                                       Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, Adv.
                                                            Mr. Guddu Singh, Adv.


    The Court:

    1.

Let this matter appear in the list on 6th May, 2025, under the same

heading. In the meantime, effect shall not be given to the direction for

recovery of the amounts mentioned in the warranty rejection advices

dated February 21, 2025 for a period of three weeks.

2. The petitioner has made out a, prima facie, case for grant of an interim

order, inasmuch as, the reply to the queries made by the petitioner

under the RTI Act, indicates that sample wise testing had not been done

and sampling details and testing results were not available. In the view
2

of this Court, as the warranty rejection advice provides that the supplier

can either replace or repair the defective goods, unless the testing

results or the test samples are made available to the supplier, it would

be impossible for the supplier to avail of the opportunity to either

replace or repair without any knowledge of the defect. The said clause

in the warranty rejection advice would be redundant. Moreover,

rejection of the goods without providing the petitioner with the test

results or details of the defects appears to be arbitrary.

3. The point of jurisdiction is kept open.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)

B.Pal