Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 199 (CAL)

M. G. M. Rubber Company v. Union of India

2017-02-21

DEBANGSU BASAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners challenge the warranty claim letters issued by the Railway authorities to it. 2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners had entered into contracts for supply of Injection Moulded Silent Block for Anchor Link of bogie/coaches with the Railway authorities. He refers to the terms and conditions of the contract particularly the warranty clause thereof. He submits that, the warranty requires the petitioner to replace defective materials/workmanship and the performance for a period of 42 months from the date of supply or 36 months from the date of fitment whichever is earlier. He submits that, after the supplies being effected by the petitioner, the same are kept in stacked at the place of the Railway authorities. Apart from the petitioners there are other suppliers. It is difficult to differentiate amongst the supplies made by the different suppliers. He refers to a writing dated June 10, 2014 of the Railway authorities and submits that, in spite of a request being made by the petitioner for supply of the purchase order and the date of failure along with manufacturing mark of the item concerned, the Railway authorities had expressed their inability to do so. He submits that, the demand for replacement in terms of the warranty clause is, therefore, misplaced. The Railway authorities have no material to substantiate that the supplies made by the petitioners are visited with the defects as claimed. The Railway authorities not being in a position to identify the supply of the petitioners, the question of replacement does not arise. He submits that, the time period covered under the warranty has also expired. 3. Learned Advocate for the Railway authorities relies upon a chart showing the date of the supplies and the number of failures of the materials supplied along with other details. She submits that, the supplies made by the first petitioner is identifiable and that, there are defects in the supplies made by the first petitioner which it is obliged to replace in terms of the warranty clause of the contract. The Railway authorities have asked the first petitioner to replace the defective supplies. There is no infirmity in the impugned action. The demand made by the Railway authorities cannot be said to make malafide or being unreasonable or arbitrary. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 5. The Railway authorities have asked the first petitioner to replace the defective supplies. There is no infirmity in the impugned action. The demand made by the Railway authorities cannot be said to make malafide or being unreasonable or arbitrary. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 5. The petitioners and the Railway authorities had entered into contracts for supply of the Injection Moulded Silent Block for Anchor Link of bogie/coaches. The terms and conditions of such contracts have a warranty clause which is as follows:- “7.0 Warranty:- The injection moulded silent block for anchor link shall be deemed to bear a warranty against defective materials/workmanship and the performance for a period of 42 months from the date of supply or 36 months from the date of fitment whichever is earlier. In case, the material shows any defects/fails within the warranty period, it shall be replaced by new one without any cost.” 6. The petitioners acknowledge the warranty clause. The petitioners claim that, in the event a rejection happens within the parameters of the warranty clause they are obliged to act in terms therewith. According to the petitioners, they have not defaulted in acting in terms of the warranty clause. The warranty clause requires the petitioners to replace defective materials/workmanship and the performance for a period of 42 months from the date of supply or 36 months from the date of fitment whichever is earlier. The chart made over by the learned Advocate for the respondent details the month and year of the supply, the purchase order numbers and the number of warranty failures. A sample of the goods supplied was brought to Court on behalf of the Railway authorities. There was no dispute that the sample belonged to the petitioners. The sample contains the name of the petitioners as the manufacturers. It contains sufficient details to identify the first petitioner as the supplier. The goods, therefore, are identifiable. The date of supply is also identifiable. The rejections have happened when the materials were not being fitted. Therefore, in terms of the warranty clause the petitioner is obliged to replace such materials without any cost for a period of 42 months from the date of supply. The chart relied upon by the Railway authorities demonstrates that, the demand for warranty is within time. 7. The rejections have happened when the materials were not being fitted. Therefore, in terms of the warranty clause the petitioner is obliged to replace such materials without any cost for a period of 42 months from the date of supply. The chart relied upon by the Railway authorities demonstrates that, the demand for warranty is within time. 7. The contention of the petitioners that, the items supplied and the so-called rejections are not identifiable, is without any basis. The items supplied by the petitioners are identifiable. The defective supplies have been identified. The Railway authorities are entitled to demand replacement in terms of the warranty clause. Reliance on the letter dated June 10, 2014 of the Railway authorities for the contention that, the goods are unidentifiable, in my view, is misplaced. The letter emanates out of a department of the Railways which was not concerned with the purchase order. The letter had emanated out of the workshop of the Railways. It had stated that, it is not possible to reject or cancel the item by the workshop. It does not say that, the Railways cannot do so. The Railway authorities, at the appropriate stage, are entitled to call upon the petitioner to replace the same in terms of the warranty clause. It has done so. 8. In such circumstances, I do not find any material irregularity in the demands of the Railway authorities seeking replacements according to the warranty clause. The demands made by the Railway authorities cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. 9. W.P. No. 1097 (W) of 2016 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. All interim orders passed in the writ petition stand vacated. Later:- 11. The prayer for stay is considered and refused.