Gauhati High Court
M/S New Age Petcoke Pvt Ltd vs The Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. And 2 Ors on 22 May, 2023
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010101472023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2662/2023
M/S NEW AGE PETCOKE PVT LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED
AT PALASHBARI, NH-31C, P.O. KAJALGAON, DIST. CHIRANG, BTAD,
ASSAM, PIN- 783385 AND REPRESENTED BY SHRI BIPUL KUMAR DUTTA
ONE OF THE DIRECTORS AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF THE
PETITIONER COMPANY.
VERSUS
THE NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD. AND 2 ORS
LOCATED AT MORANGI, GOLAGHAT, ASSAM AND A GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA ENTERPRISE, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGING
DIRECTOR, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 122A, NRL CENTRE,
G.S. ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI-781005.
2:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER NRMT
NUMALIGARH REFINERY
MORANGI
P.O. NRP
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785699.
3:THE CM (MARKETING) NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
NEDFi HOUSE
4TH FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
GANESHGURI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
PIN- 781006
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
22.05.2023 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
In brief, the case of the petitioner is that they were to lift a specific quantity of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC for short) and in course of the process of lifting, by an email dated 27.03.2023 issued by the NRL, the upliftment was temporarily withheld on account of safety concerns in view of the Refinery Turned Around 2023. By a subsequent mail dated 19.04.2023, the petitioner was permitted a frequent of the balance quantity of RPC within 29.05.2023.
The petitioner has invoked clause 26 of the Business Requirements Document (BRD) to claim refund of the uplifted quantity of the RPC.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 28.04.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 2273/2023, where the facts was similar and it is submitted that in the said order, as an interim measure it was provided that there shall be no coercive action against the in terms of clause 10[c][2] of the BRD.
The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has submitted that except for the quantity, auction ID etc., basic facts are similar.
Page No.# 3/3 Issue notice, returnable on a date when proceedings of WP (C) 2273/2023 is listed.
Requisite extra copies of the writ petition shall be served upon the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the day.
As an interim measure and till the next returnable date, it is provided that the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner in terms of clause 10[c][2] of the BRD.
List along with WP(C) No. 2273/2023.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant