Surya Alloy Quashes Three Warranty Rejections

Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Commercial Division)

Order Date: 30 June 2026

Parties: Surya Alloy Industries Limited (petitioner) vs South Eastern Railway and its officers (respondents).
Contractual Background: petitioner supplied an aggregate of 208,000 pieces of Elastic Railway Clips MK‑V, approved by RDSO, on 12 July 2024, 14 July 2024 and 7 September 2024.
Dispute Trigger: respondents issued three Warranty Rejection Advices, all dated 1 May 2026, without conducting a joint inspection of the goods.
Procedural Deficiency: the Court observed that the rejection advices lacked clear grounds and were issued without prior joint inspection, despite the goods being within the 30‑month warranty period (approximately two years after supply).
Legal Position: the Court held that a joint inspection should have preceded any warranty‑based rejection to allow prima facie qualitative analysis of the material.

The Court set aside/quashed the three Warranty Rejection Advices (pages 63, 65, 67 of the application).
Directed the parties to conduct a joint inspection of the entire quantity, scheduled by mutual consent on 8 July 2026, 9 July 2026 and 10 July 2026.
Parties must cooperate and endeavour to complete the inspection within the stipulated period, employing random sampling and drawing the entire quantity in lots if required.
The quashing is not a finding that the Railways’ rejection was illegal; it is solely because the joint inspection was omitted.
Should the inspection reveal that the goods are de hors the specification, inferior, or off‑grade, the Railways retain the right to reject them pursuant to contractual provisions, and the petitioner may subsequently challenge any such rejection.
The matter (AP‑COM 380 of 2026) is hereby disposed of.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Railway Procurement, Warranty Enforcement