Authority: Calcutta High Court

Order Date: 27 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners Rajendra Kumar Ameria & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
  • Petitioners filed writ application WPA 16764 of 2026 challenging a notice dated 3 July 2026 issued by railway authorities demanding Rs 1,40,57,835.32 as maintenance, inspection and OHE (Over‑Head Equipment) maintenance charges for the period 2017‑2018 to 2022‑2025.
  • Two agreements exist between the parties: a private siding agreement No. 567 dated 6 February 2018 and a manufacture‑and‑supply‑of‑wagons agreement. The siding agreement (dated 25 September 2019) contains Clause 34 providing for arbitration of any dispute, and Clause 8 relating to maintenance and other charges. Clause 37 states the agreement is deemed to have come into force on 7 November 2003 (the order later notes 7 November 2023, reflecting a textual inconsistency).
  • Petitioners contend that the arbitration clause does not apply to the railway’s claim because the claim predates the agreement and because a letter dated 30 January 2026 from the railway indicated that OHE maintenance charges for the siding at Baruipur were exempted.
  • Petitioners rely on judgments: Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Vijaykumar V. Iyer (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4), Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India (2016 11 SCC 720), and M/s H. M. Kamaluddin Ansari & Co. v. Union of India (1983 4 SCC 417), arguing that set‑off requires liquidated debts and that breach of contract does not automatically create a payable amount without court adjudication.
  • Railway authorities raise a preliminary objection that the petitioners, by a notice dated 11 July 2026, admitted the dispute is arbitrable under Clause 34 and should have initiated arbitration rather than filing a writ.
  • Railway authorities cite a clarification dated 19 December 2025 stating that OHE maintenance charges are not applicable to sidings/terminals commissioned before FMC 11 of 2016, but revised guidelines issued on 23 June 2020 (via an amendment letter) make OHE charges applicable to sidings commissioned under FMC 11 of 2016. A Board letter dated 6 March 2024 further confirms that OHE maintenance costs are to be raised by the railway.
  • The railway asserts that Clause 8 of the siding agreement authorises the maintenance and inspection charges, and that OHE maintenance charges are claimable from 23 June 2020, not from 25 October 2022 as initially indicated.
  • Petitioners, on 11 July 2026, issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, objecting to the demand and seeking arbitration, but the court notes that the question of arbitrability is for the arbitrator, not the court.
  • The petitioners also cite an unreported coordinate‑bench judgment in Titagarh Wagons Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India (WPA 18852 of 2021, dated 5 April 2022) where the bench held that such matters are private contracts requiring trial by evidence and dismissed the writ.

Final Outcome

  • The Court finds that the siding agreement, though dated 25 September 2019, was given effect from 7 November 2003 (or 2023 as per the order) and includes provisions for maintenance charges.
  • The petitioners’ objection to OHE maintenance exemption and their filing of a writ instead of proceeding to arbitration render the writ petition non‑maintainable.
  • Consequently, WPA 16764 of 2026 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.
  • An urgent Xerox certified copy of the order may be issued upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Railway Contract Dispute, Arbitration Clause