Bombay High Court
Airwide Car Rent Pvt. Ltd vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 8 December, 2023
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2023:BHC-OS:14846-DB
1 906-wp-3718-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3718 OF 2022
Airwide Car Rent Pvt. Ltd.
T515, Upper Ridge Road, Near Naaz
Cinema, Jhandelwalan,
New Delhi-110 055. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through the Divisional Railway
Manager (Commercial), Western
Railways Mumbai Central, Mumbai
2. The General Manager
Western Railway, Churchgate
Mumbai
3. The Chief Parcel Supervisor
Bandra Terminus, Mumbai ... Respondents
-----
Mr. Mukhtar Khan a/w. Sumandevi Yadav a/w. Anand Kikan for Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.
Digitally
signed by
-----
ASHVINI
ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB
BAPPASAHEB KAKDE
KAKDE Date:
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
2023.12.16
16:23:53
+0530 FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 8th DECEMBER 2023
Oral Judgement (Per A. S. Chandurkar J.):-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned
Counsel for the parties.
Ashvini Kakde 1 of 4
2 906-wp-3718-2022.doc
2. The Petitioner, a private limited company engaged in providing
logistic services impugns the communications dated 3rd April 2018 and 6th
April 2018 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager informing it that since
an amount of Rs. 18,33,914/- was required to be adjusted towards the dues
to be recovered from M/s. Airwide Expresss Cargo and M/s. BVM Cargo, it
was not entitled to receive its dues. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
communication, the Petitioner has challenged the same.
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it is
not permissible for the Respondent to adjust the outstanding dues of the
Petitioner firm with that of another firm especially when both the firms have
separate legal existence. Since the dues of the Petitioner are admittedly
payable by the Respondent which fact is also acknowledged in the
communication dated 6th April 2018, there is no legal justification in
adjusting the amount which the Petitioner has to receive against the dues of
another firm.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents it has been
admitted that the Petitioner is entitled to receive its outstanding dues of Rs.
22,85,592/-. However, since one of the directors of the Petitioner-Company
Ashvini Kakde 2 of 4
3 906-wp-3718-2022.doc
also owns proprietorship firm by the name M/s. BVM Cargo coupled with the
fact that there is yet another firm by the name M/s. Airwide Express Cargo in
which one of the directors also has stake holding, the aforesaid amount has
been adjusted.
5. We find on perusal of the documents on record that it would not
be permissible for the Respondents to withhold the amount due and payable
to the Petitioner firm, a Private Limited Company on the premise that one of
the Directors is a proprietor of M/s. BVM Cargo and is also a director in M/s.
Airwide Express Cargo from whom the Respondent has to recover amounts.
Admittedly there is no authorisation granted to the Respondent by any firm
to adjust dues of one firm with that of another.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer Clause (a) and (c) which read as under:-
a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
certiorari and quash/set aside the letter dated 6th April 2018
addressed by the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner.
c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
mandamus and direct the Respondents to pay the amount of
Rs.22,85,592/- along with applicable interest to the Petitioner.
7. The aforesaid amount be paid to the Petitioner-Company within
Ashvini Kakde 3 of 4
4 906-wp-3718-2022.doc
a period of six weeks from receiving copy of this judgment.
8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no orders as to
costs.
9. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this judgment.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
Ashvini Kakde 4 of 4
