Recovery of railway demurrage requires express contractual authorization; principal liable for extraordinary vehicle detention.

The appellant-contractor (Suvajit Paul) was appointed by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) for two years (01.05.2012 to 30.04.2014) to transport food grains from Dharmanagar to Agartala

The contractor filed a suit for ₹1,52,52,800/- plus interest, claiming detention charges for trucks stranded at FCI godowns for 4 to 20 days beyond the 3-day road movement permit period due to FCI's inadequate storage space

FCI contested the suit and filed a counterclaim for railway demurrage charges, alleging the contractor failed to supply sufficient trucks, causing delays in clearing railway wagons

The Commercial Court partly decreed the contractor's suit for ₹4,42,800/- at 9% interest, applying a 6-day cut-off (3 permit days + 3 grace days) to define "extraordinary detention," and dismissed FCI’s counterclaim

Both parties appealed the judgment

1. Whether the contractor was entitled to detention charges for vehicles stranded at the destination point due to FCI’s lack of storage space.

2. Whether the detention of trucks beyond the stipulated 3-day permit period constituted an "extraordinary kind" of detention under Clause-XVIII(a)(vi) of the tender agreement.

3. Whether the Trial Court was justified in fixing a 6-day cut-off period for the commencement of detention charges.

4. Whether FCI was entitled to recover railway demurrage charges from the contractor in the absence of a specific contractual provision.

The court interpreted Clause-XVIII(a)(vi) of the tender agreement, which states that no compensation is admissible for truck detention unless it is of an "extraordinary kind"

It further applied the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Abhijit Paul (2023) 15 SCC 40, which established that "charges" in a transport contract do not include railway demurrages unless the recovery is explicitly enabled by a clause in the agreement

The court noted that FCI, via its own correspondence (Exhibit 21), admitted to a shortage of storage capacity and the consequent stranding of hundreds of trucks

The court reasoned that since the 3-day road movement permit was the standard period for delivery, any delay beyond this caused by FCI’s inability to unload trucks constitutes "extraordinary detention"

The court found the Trial Court’s imposition of an additional 3-day grace period (totaling a 6-day cut-off) to be arbitrary and without basis

Regarding the counterclaim, the court observed that the agreement lacked any clause for railway demurrage, and following Abhijit Paul, FCI could not fasten such liability on the contractor

Finally, the court found that the Trial Court had ignored several material exhibits (Exhibits 27, 41-57, 59-71, 78) which were essential for the accurate assessment of the contractor’s financial losses

The court set aside the Trial Court's 6-day cut-off, holding that detention charges should be calculated for any delay beyond the initial 3-day permit period

The matter was remanded to the District Commercial Court for the limited purpose of re-determining the compensation amount by considering the previously ignored exhibits and applying the 3-day cut-off, with a directive to deliver a fresh judgment within four months