M/S Naryanan Consultancy vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1994 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                        LPA 214/2009 & C.M. No.6790/2009


                  M/s Naryanan Consultancy            ..... Appellant
                             Through: Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate with
                             Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina
                             Madhavan, Mr. Shwetank Sailkwal and
                             Ms. Reeta Chandaranna, Advocates.

                         versus


                   Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ..... Respondents
                               Through: None.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 12.05.2009

1. The present appeal is preferred against the order of the

learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2009. Briefly stated, the facts of

the present case are that there were disputes between the Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd.(IOC) and the Western Railways as regards the

question of refund of excess freight charges by the Railways to the

IOC. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) claims

that IOC entered into a contract with it for consultancy services to

secure settlement of such outstanding claims. The appellant as

consultant was responsible for pursuing the matter with the Railways

and getting IOC's claims settled. The appellant was entitled to

charges for the services rendered in accordance with Schedule-A to

the contract. The appellant claims to have followed up a large

number of claims and was able to successfully secure settlements of

over 14,000 claims. As per the appellant due to its effort IOC was the

beneficiary of large amounts but despite this the refunds as due to

him were not paid by IOC. It was contended that having availed of

the services and obtained refund of substantial amounts IOC cannot

refuse to honour the appellant's bills. The IOC in its turn contended

before the learned Single Judge that it had made payments to the

petitioner towards consultancy charges for amounts that it had

actually received from the Railways. Since no amount was disbursed

towards substantial part of the claims the IOC had filed claims before

the Railway Claims Tribunal for the same. It was the case of the IOC

that it did not pay consultancy charges to the appellant for the

amounts that had not been realized. It was further submitted on

behalf of the IOC that for the amounts realized after the consultancy

contract ended the appellant could not claim credit as the same were

realized through independent efforts of IOC. As per the IOC the

appellant was not entitled to any consultancy charges for the

amounts realized after the contract had ended. The Western

Railways also filed its counter affidavit in the writ petition and stated

that disputes between the IOC and itself towards refund of alleged

excess claims were sub-judice and pending before the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Ahmedabad and that the said tribunal is the most

appropriate forum to adjudicate the disputes.

2. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the facts of the

present case disclosed that the question of what is payable to the

appellants is not admitted by the respondents. The Railways did not

admit the claims and even the IOC's case was that the Railways had

not settled its claims. However, the disputes between the IOC and

Western Railways were pending adjudication. The learned Single

Judge, thus, rightly came to the conclusion that in such

circumstances it would be imprudent and inexpedient to examine

the feasibility and soundness of the appellant's claim. Further, as

correctly held by the learned Single Judge that as regards the claim

of the IOC that the appellant was not entitled to consultancy charges

for the amounts received after the contract ended and that such

amounts were received by independent initiative of IOC were all

disputed questions of fact and they would necessarily involve

recording of evidence and consideration of arguably voluminous

documents and materials, for which Article 226 proceedings would be

inappropriate. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact

that there was considerable delay as well in the appellant

approaching this Hon'ble Court.

3. The appellant in the writ petition has also made allegations

against the Railways and has stated that the Railways were not

justified in charging wrong freight charges from the IOC and that the

Railways were illegally holding on to the amounts that it was required

to refund/disburse to the IOC. Accordingly, relief was also sought

against the Railway to notify the correct charge of freight and a

direction to the Railways to make payments of 14.7 crores with

interest to the IOC. We fail to see as to how the appellant could claim

these reliefs in the present petition against the Railways with whom it

had no privity of contract if there was arbitrariness in the actions of

the Railways it was for the IOC to take necessary action in

accordance with the law. In any case the disputes between the IOC

and the Railways are pending before the Railway Claims Tribunal.

The appellant can not pursue the matter on behalf of the IOC

against the Railways by way of the present writ petition out of which

the appeal arises.

4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal must

fail. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also

stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 12, 2009 RS