Central Warehousing Corporation And Ors vs. Kishan Lal Sharma

Facts

The respondent, Kishan Lal Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging a demand of Rs. 6,65,874/- raised by the appellants, Central Warehousing Corporation, for storage charges, including GST. The petitioner had leased storage space from the appellants and disputes arose regarding retrospective rent enhancement and the demand. The appellants had padlocked the godown, preventing the petitioner from accessing stored materials. The learned Single Judge, in an order dated April 11, 2019, found the appellants' action arbitrary and directed them to adjust occupation charges at the undisputed rate and refund any excess payment. Subsequently, the padlock was removed, and the petitioner was allowed to retrieve their goods. The appeal concerns the remaining dispute over rent and potential refunds.

Held

The Court held that the legality and validity of the appellants' action in putting a padlock on the godown need not be gone into at this stage, as the padlock has since been removed and the petitioner has been permitted to retrieve their goods. Regarding the dispute over rent, the Court found that the calculation of dues by the appellants (Rs. 6,65,874/- including GST) and the petitioner (Rs. 5,38,080/-) represent disputed questions of fact. These cannot be decided in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the parties should lead evidence before an appropriate forum. If the dispute pertains to storage spaces with arbitration clauses in their agreements, arbitration can be invoked. If it relates to storage space without an arbitration agreement, the Civil Court is the appropriate forum. The appeal was disposed of by granting liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate forum for recovery of their dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellants had the right to seal the tenancy of the writ petitioner (Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and general principles of contract law)? - Petitioner's argument: The appellants' action in sealing the godown was arbitrary and without legal basis, as they did not have the right to do so. The learned Single Judge's finding that the action was arbitrary is correct. - Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded. 2. Whether the dispute regarding the rent and the amount due, including GST, can be decided in writ jurisdiction? - Petitioner's argument: The learned Single Judge correctly identified the dispute over rent as a question of fact that cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's calculation of dues should be considered. - Revenue/State's argument: The appellants' calculation of pending storage charges, including GST, is correct and should be upheld. The dispute involves factual determination of amounts due.