Wrongful delay in canalised supply requires quarter-wise pricing and bars carrying charges caused by the supplier's own default.

Where entitlement to canalised raw materials accrued in earlier quarters, but supply was wrongfully delayed despite court directions, the applicable price was the quarter-wise rate prevailing when entitlement accrued, not the higher rate on the date of delayed supply. The note also states that carrying charges could not be levied where the respondents themselves caused the delay and failed to make a reasonable, workable supply arrangement. The claimant was therefore to receive the quota at contemporaneous prices without ancillary delay-based charges.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to supply of the canalised raw materials at the prices prevailing in the quarters in which their entitlement accrued, and not at the higher prices prevailing on the dates of actual supply; (ii) whether the respondents could levy carrying charges in the circumstances of delayed and wrongful withholding of supply.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to supply of the canalised raw materials at the prices prevailing in the quarters in which their entitlement accrued, and not at the higher prices prevailing on the dates of actual supply.

Analysis: The entitlement had accrued during the relevant quarters, but the supply was deliberately delayed despite court directions. The petitioners were denied quota illegally and were not responsible for the delay in actual supply. In such circumstances, the price applicable was the price charged to actual users during the relevant quarters, not the later market price prevailing when the respondents eventually acted.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the petitioners. The respondents were bound to supply the material at the rates prevalent in the relevant quarters.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents could levy carrying charges in the circumstances of delayed and wrongful withholding of supply.

Analysis: The delay in making the quota available was attributable entirely to the respondents, and the offers made were not structured to enable the petitioners to lift the quota within a reasonable time or with adequate financial arrangement. Carrying charges could not be justified as a matter of fairness where the respondents themselves caused the delay and consequential hardship.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the petitioners. The respondents were not entitled to charge carrying charges.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the respondents were directed to supply the quota for the relevant quarters at the contemporaneous quarter-wise prices, without carrying charges, on a reasonable and workable basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where entitlement to canalised goods is wrongfully withheld despite binding court directions, the supplier cannot shift the financial burden onto the claimant by charging the later market price or ancillary carrying charges arising from its own delay.

---