AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
No Â
of
Rake","Total Time
period till
03.11.2015
(order
passed by
Hon’ble
Double
Bench of
Delhi High
Court) since
induction of
rakes","No. of
Rakes
eligible
for
freight
for
freight
rebate as
per the
policy
(72
rakes as
per/rake)","Capital cost
per rake (Rs.
in Cr.)","Annual
depreciation
p e r  rakeÂ
(Rs.
In Crore)","Valuation of
the rake for the
period i.e. from
03.11.2015 till
expiry Â
of the
contract
Rake
one","9 years 5
months 2
days",678,"13,00,00,000","1,30,00,00/-",7512100.46
Rake
Two","9 years 2
months 2
days",660,"13,00,00,000","1,30,00,00/-",10762100.46
Rake
Three","7 years 9
months 12
days",560,"13,00,00,000","1,30,00,00/-",28822602.74
Rake
Four","7 years 1
month 1 days",510,"13,00,00,000","1,30,00,00/-",37881050.23
Total 4
Rakes",,"2,408",,,"8,49,77,853.89
directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and if petitioners are not satisfied with the reply so given, then they are at liberty to invoke the",,,,,
arbitration clause or to avail of the remedies, as available in law. Thus, it is submitted that the above-said directions issued have been already complied",,,,,
with and so, these petitions deserve dismissal.",,,,,
Upon hearing and on careful perusal of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court, as referred to above, and the material on record, I",,,,,
find that respondent-Railways was directed to calculate the price of wagons/rakes as per its norms under the Scheme and tender it to petitioners,,,,,
herein, which according to petitioners, has not been done by respondent-Railways. The stand of respondent-Railways is evident from Reply of 23rd",,,,,
February, 2018 given by them to petitioners’ Notice seeking compliance of the aforesaid directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court. While",,,,,
relying upon E.D. Committee’s Report of 13th December, 2016, residual value of the wagons/rakes in question has been assessed, but due to",,,,,
under utilization of the wagons/rakes by petitioners, respondent-Railways claims to have suffered revenue loss of `404.57 crores and so, according to",,,,,
respondent-Railways, no amount is payable to petitioners in lieu of wagons/rakes in question. It is evident from respondents’ Reply of 23rd",,,,,
February, 2018 that respondent-Railways intends to file a claim for the revenue loss suffered by them due to under utilization of wagons/rakes in",,,,,
question and according to respondent-Railways, it would be done after adjusting the price of wagons/rakes. E.D. Committee’s Report on valuation",,,,,
of wagons/rakes procured under,,,,,
Wagon Investment Scheme is the basis on which the reply of 23rd February, 2018 has been sent by respondent-Railways to petitioners.",,,,,
In the considered opinion of this Court, respondent-Railways has substantially complied with the afore-referred directions issued by a Division",,,,,
Bench of this Court as the valuation of wagons/rakes in question has been done and if petitioners are not satisfied with respondents’ Reply of 23rd,,,,,
February, 2018, then they are at liberty to seek arbitration or avail of the remedies as available in law. Since the loss of revenue suffered by",,,,,
respondent-Railways due to under utilization of wagons/rakes in question has surpassed the value of wagons/rakes in question, therefore, according to",,,,,
respondent-Railways, nothing is payable to petitioners.",,,,,
This Court finds that there is no willful disobedience of the above-referred directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court. No case for initiating,,,,,
proceedings under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against respondents is made out. Accordingly, these contempt petitions are dismissed with",,,,,
liberty as aforesaid, while making it clear that legality of respondent’s Reply of 23rd February, 2018 has not been gone into. It is left open to be",,,,,
considered in appropriate proceedings, if so invoked.",,,,,