IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 08.09.2025

1. FAO-8573-2017 (O&M) 2. FAO-8574-2017 (O&M) 3. FAO-8668-2017 (O&M) 4. FAO-8669-2017 (O&M) 5. FAO-8679-2017 (O&M)

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ....Appellant Versus UNION OF INDIA ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate and Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate for respondent-UOI.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by ratio of law laid down by this Court in FAO No.3398 of 2017 titled as ‘Indian Oil Corporation vs. Union of India’ decided vide order dated 08.10.2021 observing as under:-

“Challenge in the present set of appeals is to the order dated

29.08.2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the claims filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking refund of excess freight charges, had been rejected under the preliminary issue No.1, on the ground that the same were barred by limitation. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal came to the finding that the since no notice of the claim has been served within the period of 6 months, under Section 106 read with Section 107 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Act'), the proceedings were barred, as such. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Nagarika Exports (P) Ltd. & another 2002 (10) SCC 101 that the preliminary issue should be decided first.

Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in CA-21862-2017 titled M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India, decided on 14.12.2017, wherein the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 31.03.2016 was set aside. Resultantly, it was held that keeping in view the earlier judgment in Union of India & others Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & another 2004 AIR (SC) 3079, an illegal charge was distinguishable from the case of over-charge and would not attract Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 which is para-materia to Section 106 of the Act, now relied upon by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the claims of the Corporation were allowed, since the matter had been decided on merits therein.

Relevant portion reads as under:

“10. On the other hand, in West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) this Court in paragraph 20 of the said report took the view that as the freight paid was as per the rates notified the case would not be one of overcharge at all. If that is the view taken by this Court on an interpretation of the pari materia provision in the erstwhile Act i.e. the Railway Act, 1890 (i.e. Section 78-B) we do not see why, in the facts of the present case which are largely identical, we should be taking any other view in the matter.

11. Consequently and in the light of the above we allow the present appeals; set aside the order of the High Court as well as that of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh and allow the claims of the appellant which will be paid forthwith on due and proper calculation.”

A perusal of the paperbook would also go on to show that the claim of the Corporation is that as per the Railway receipts, the distance from Baholi (Panipat) to Kandla is 1130 kms whereas the distance were taken of 1270 kms by the Railways and on account of the said fact, the claims have been alleged though the same had been made after the period of 6 months. In West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the issue of benefit of telescopic system of rates which had been denied to the respondents. The stand of the Railways was that suits were barred by limitation and could not be entertained unless proceeded by the notification of the claims under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Resultantly, while discussing the issue of over-charge and case of illegal charge, the following position was laid down: