GWALIOR SUGAR CO LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON different grounds though, plaintiff and defendants have both appealed against the same judgment and decree passed on 30-8-1977 by Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1972. Both appeals - F. A. No. 73/77, preferred by the plaintiff and F. A. No. 7/78, preferred by defendants are - heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) PLAINTIFF/company is aggrieved as its suit is partly decreed while the defandants, the Union of India and the Central Railway, contend that the suit ought to have been dismissed in toto. Plaintiffs claim in the suit filed on 28-7-1972, was based on an agreement which the Company had executed on 12-7-1941 with the Governor General of India for construction and maintenance of railway siding for transporting of goods of the Sugar Mills from inside the Company's campus, close to the Dabra Railway Station on the Central Railway. By the impugned decree, a declaration has been made that the defendants can claim shunting charges for placing and removing only loaded, and not empty, wagons into and from plaintiffs siding, calculated on the basis of shunting time of 20 minutes 45 seconds against plaintiff, claiming that shunting time was 20 minutes only per trip. Claim for refund of Rs. 14,780. 21/- as excess paid for shunting charges was rejected; so also prayer for permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from suspending the siding facilities.

(3.) ON merits, plaintiffs claim was resisted by the defendants relying on the provisions of Central Railway Supplementary Goods Tariff No. 2, submitting that although there were shunting trials on different dates for determining the shunting time, result of those trials could not affect the provisions of the Tariff Rules. Under those Rules the charge was fixed at Rs. 47. 70 per trip and revised to Rs. 49/- w. e. from 15-12-1970. Importantly, however, objection was taken to Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the question of reasonableness of the rate charged because jurisdiction in that regard was vested Under Section 41 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890, for short, the 1890 Act, in the Railway Rates Tribunal, for short, the Tribunal. For that, reliance was also placed on Section 26 of the said Act. Additionally, special plea was raised to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the notice served Under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code was invalid and the suit was premature. They also contended that permanent injunction, prayed by the plaintiff, could not be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case.