Madras High Court
Criminal LawCivil Law

A transporter cannot detain a customer’s goods over a contractor’s unpaid dues, Madras HC rules, allowing criminal investigation to continue

M/s.V.K.S.Transpoerts vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep B

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 07, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A transporter cannot detain a customer’s goods over a contractor’s unpaid dues, Madras HC rules, allowing criminal investigation to continue. M/s.V.K.S.Transpoerts vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep B. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

First Energy Private Limited, owner of materials for a wind-power project, engaged Everrenew Energy Private Limited as EPC contractor. Everrenew subcontracted transportation to V.K.S. Transports.

Source reference: para. 2–5, 16–17

In November 2025, the materials were loaded into 17 vehicles at First Energy’s stockyard, but V.K.S. refused to move them, citing unpaid dues owed to it by Everrenew.

Source reference: para. 2–5, 16–17

First Energy alleged that it had paid Everrenew in full, offered to pay the freight directly or have the goods unloaded, and lodged a police complaint. An FIR was registered against the transport company and its partners under Sections 61(1), 316(3) and 318(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Source reference: para. 1, 5, 9–12

The accused sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on a carrier’s lien and describing the dispute as civil.

Source reference: para. 1, 5, 9–12

They also sought recall of an earlier order directing production of the transport bills, payment of the charges by First Energy, and delivery of the goods.

Source reference: para. 6–8, 35–36
02

Issues

1. Whether the transport company could rely on a carrier’s lien to retain goods belonging to First Energy for unpaid dues allegedly owed by Everrenew, where the goods had not been transported to their destination.

Source reference: para. 18, 21–26

2. Whether the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation, or should be quashed as arising from a civil or commercial dispute.

Source reference: para. 40–44

3. Whether the earlier order concerning production of bills and delivery of the goods should be recalled.

Source reference: para. 35–36, 45
03

Law Applied

Section 15(4) of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 permits a common carrier to detain or dispose of a consignment to recover freight and other charges where the consignee fails to pay at the time of taking delivery; the Court held that this right arises after the goods have been carried to their destination.

Source reference: para. 21–26

Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides a bailee with a particular lien for remuneration for services rendered in respect of the goods, while Section 171

04

Acts & Sections Cited

8 provisions across 5 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233

Carriage by Road Act, 20071

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.1

Indian Contract Act, 18722

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

M/s.V.K.S.TranspoertsvsThe State Of Tamilnadu Rep B

Madras High Court · October 07, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment