Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAMANNAR (C.J) & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
Southern Railways and Another - Appellant
Versus
The Railway Rates Tribunal and Others - Respondent
Case No : Writ Petns. Nos. 961 and 1007 of 1953
Decided On : 20 September 1954
RAILWAYS ACT - S. 28, 41(1) - RAILWAY RATES TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - POWER TO MAKE DECLARATIONS OR GRANT RELIEF IN RESPECT OF PERIOD ANTERIOR TO FINAL ORDER - S. 39 - SCOPE - POWER TO ORDER REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT - S. 26 - EFFECT - ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LAW - UNDUE PREFERENCE - ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED - INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (U.S.A.) - S. 2, 3, 8, 9 - DAMAGES - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - S. 196(3) - RAILWAY TRIBUNAL - POWERS.
Fact of the Case:
The Engineering Supplies Co., Bombay, filed a complaint before the Railway Rates Tribunal against the Railways and the Central Railways under Ss 28 and 41(1), Railways Act 1890, alleging that the special rate quoted by the railways for the transport of cast iron pipes from Bhadravati to Bombay was in contravention of S. 28, Railways Act. The Tribunal held that the special rate was proper and reasonable and that it should not be cancelled, but it also held that the railways were liable to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant for the transport of cast iron pipes from Bhadravati to Kalyan and Ambarnath in excess of the former special rate. The railways filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal, and the complainant also filed a writ petition praying that the order of the Tribunal be quashed in so far as it rejected the claim for excess paid, and in so far as it rejected the applicant's claim that the rate of Re. 1-3-6 for Bhadravati to Bombay was unreasonable and contravened S. 28, Railways Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make any declarations or grant any relief in respect of a period anterior to their final order. The Court also held that the Tribunal had no power to order a refund of excess freight, which might have been collected by the railways. The Court further held that the special rate quoted by the railways for the transport of cast iron pipes from Bhadravati to Bombay was not unreasonable and did not contravene S. 28, Railways Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Railway Rates Tribunal has jurisdiction to make declarations or grant relief in respect of a period anterior to their final order? 2. Whether the Tribunal has power to order a refund of excess freight, which might have been collected by the railways? 3. Whether the special rate quoted by the railways for the transport of cast iron pipes from Bhadravati to Bombay was unreasonable and contravened S. 28, Railways Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The language of S. 41(1) of the Railways Act clearly indicates that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to complaints of contravention of the provisions of S. 28, charging unreasonable rates or charges, levying unreasonable charges, or unreasonably refusing to quote a new station to station rate, which are subsisting on the date of the complaint. The Tribunal cannot make any declarations or grant any relief in respect of a period anterior to their final order. 2. The Tribunal has no power to order a refund of excess freight, which might have been collected by the railways. Section 39 of the Railways Act, which empowers the Tribunal to pass such final and interim orders as the circumstances may require, does not confer a power on the Tribunal to make an order for payment of compensation or damages or make an order of refund of overcharges. 3. The special rate quoted by the railways for the transport of cast iron pipes from Bhadravati to Bombay was not unreasonable and did not contravene S. 28, Railways Act. The Tribunal, after considering several relevant circumstances, held that the complainant's grievance was not well founded and that there was no contravention of S. 28.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the railways was allowed to the extent that the order of the Tribunal, in so far as it made declarations for a period before the date of the filing of the complaint, was quashed. The writ petition filed by the complainant was dismissed.
RAJAMANNAR (C.J)
Both these petitions filed under Art. 226 Constitution are directed against the Railway Tribunal in respect of their proceedings plaint filed by a firm called the Engineering supplies Co., Bombay, who carry on business cast iron pipes, among other things, against Railways and the Central Railways under Ss 28 and 41(1), Railways Act 1890.
(2) The principal iron and steel manufacturing of India are Bhadravati in My sore and Burnpur and Tatanagar in Bihar and Bengal,' is the place where the factory of Bengal Steel Company is situated. The railways quoting special rates for the transport or pipes to various cities and towns in the for over .20 years. From 15-10-1949, the full tariff rate for cast iron pipes from Bhadravati to was Re. 1-15-1, but the special rate being WAS Re. 1-3-6. The full tariff rate from 1 Bombay was Rs. 3-3-8 from 15-10-1949,] special rate being charged was Re. 1-6-1 rate was, however, cancelled from 1-4-1952 complainant who imports cast iron pipes from Bhadravati to Bombay and other stations ed to the railway that there was an undue shown for Bisco, which was in contravention S. 28, Railways Act.
The firm also applied to the railways a special station to station rate from Bhadravati to Kalyan and Ambarnath, intermediate between Bhadravati and Bombay. As no relief from the railways, they filed Several- reliefs were claimed by the firm, namely, that reduced station to may be fixed for the carriage of cast iron pipes from Bhadravati to Bombay on the basis of the same percentage reduction or maund mile return the Bisco Bombay rate, and from Bhadravati to badlapur , Ambarnath and Kalyan on and consequential basis, that it should that so long as the special rate from I bay and from Bhadravati to Bombay, other stations remained in force, that 1952, the refusal to quote new station to station rates and the rate charged to the unreasonable and contravened S. 28 . and that the excess sum collected fro the compliment by the railways for traffic from Bhadravati to Bombay from 15-10-1949 and from Ambarnath and Kalyan from January1951 may be re funded, and that it should be declared that the cancellation of the special rate from to Poona for cast iron pipes also and the charging of the rate of Re. 1-9-7 pipes as "against Re. 1-1-11 for all other articles of Iron and Steel, Division B, contravene the Act, and that the said cancellation to be withdrawn and proper station from Bhadravati to Poona, Badlapur and Kalyan should he fixed.
The railways pleaded that the compliment was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. Another firm Messrs. Hindustan Materials. Ltd., Bombay, intervened in the proceedings on the side of the compliment , and prayed for certain reliefs in res-of the rate iron Bhadravati to Bombay, from Bhadravati to Kalyan, and Ambarnath, and from Bhadravati to Poona. Several issues were framed the pleadings. The complaint was heard fully the Railway Rates Tribunal. Of the three members -of the Tribunal, the President and one o pound the members , Mr. Roy, held that the only relief the
2.was entitled to was a declaration that January 1951 the station to station rates for transport of cast iron pipes in wagon loads ex. Bhadravati to Ambarnath and Kalyan should have he then prevailing station to station rate and to Bombay plus the usual re-booking barges to Ambarnath and Kalyan respectively at the prevailing tariff rate, and that it was unreasonable part of the respondents to have refused to that rate, and to an order that station to station rates for cast iron pipes ex. Bhadravati to Ambarnath and Kalyan from the date of the filing the complaint should be quoted on the same basis
The other member, Mr. Subba Rao was of opinion - that the special rate from Bhadravati to Bombay -'of Re. 1-3-6 per maund was proper and reason-lie and that it should not be cancelled, that the rate from Bhadravati to Poona which had been led should be restored, that the special rate from bhadravati to Kalyan and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
