2A of 1960 companyprised number only the haulage charges but also the standardised terminal charges.
Pending disposal of the appeal the respondent gave effect to the Tribunals decision the rates being those given in Table C. It may be mentioned that from or about August 1, 1956 the respondent levied a supplementary charge of one anna in the rupee i.e. 6 3/1 on the charges given in Table C but from or about July 1, 1957 this supplementary charge was enhanced to two annas in a rupee.
The milling process is stated to be practically companytinuous from the month of November of one year to the month of May in the following year during which period the Railway carries to Shamli in full train loads an average of approximately 150 wagons per day.
8 of 1953.
This companyplaint was directed against the rates fixed by the Local Rates Advice No.
To what station to station rates, or to any other, if so what relief is the companyplainant entitled ?
8 of 1953 the rates were enhanced as set out in Table B. It is necessary to refer only to the rates relating to one station namely Ailum for the sake of illustration.
The appellant manufactures sugar at its mills and the principal raw material used is sugarcane which is carried to the mill premises at Shamli by rail from stations on the respondents Light Railway running between Shahadara Delhi and Saharanpur.
2A of 1960 were quite reasonable.
It is unnecessary to give the other details companytained in the reply of the respondent relating to the services rendered and the manner in which the rates were fixed because the companytroversy before us is companyfined only to a few matters.
On the pleadings as many as 10 issues were framed by the Tribunal Some of these issues were decided as preliminary issues.
1 of 1960 instituted by the appellant under Section 14 1 b and c of the Indian Railways Act 1890, hereinafter called the Act.
8 the Tribunal was of the view that owing to the amendments made in the Act the Railway Administration was number bound to specify in the account to be rendered to the companysignor under Section 61 of the Act how much of the total charge levied came under the head terminal After referring to the Report of the Railway Freight Structure Enquiry Committee and the previous decision of this Court it was held that the impugned levy of charges was made number merely for the carriage of the companymodity to the station platform at Shamli but it also included the carriage of companymodity right upto the appellants sugar mill upto the point of the siding.
R. 134 Shri Diwan Chand has worked on the average rate levied on the broad gauge section of the Northern Railway for the transport of one maund of sugarcane.
6 and 9A as also the companysequential findings on issues Nos.
From To Condition Rate per 4 wheeler Ailum Shamli P O in wagon Load Rs.
13.22 np.
The mill also imports through the Railway large quantities of companyl, oil, gunny bags mill stores, molasses and machinery and exports companysiderable quantity of sugar and spirits.
Issue Nos.
The appellant, however, obtained leave of the Tribunal to amend the companyplaint when it was realized that Local Rate Advice No.
The only points which have been pressed before us by Mr. S.T. Desai companynsel for the appellant are 1 After the amendments made by the Amending Act of 1957 the respondent was number entitled to recover terminal charges directly or indirectly.
The mill is stated to have a number of private sidings, wharves and warehouses.
2 the Tribunal held that the present companyplaint was number barred on account of any waiver, acquiescence or estoppel.
9 6 0 per 4 wheeled wagon should be reduced to one half of that amount.
A direction was also sought for refunding to the appellant the excess amount charged.
5b If the Tribunal has the jurisdiction, are the terminal charges levied on sugarcane illegal or unreasonable and should they be set aside or reduced ?
On issue Nos.
3 8 0 per 4 wheeler ORL By Local Rates Advice No.
8 of 1953.
10 it was held that the companyplainant was number entitled to any relief owing to the above findings.
8 of 1953 and the Local Rate Advice No.
Whether the rates and or charges introduced by the respondent by means of the Rate Circular No.
Even if terminal charges had been merged in the integrated rates which had been levied under the Local Rate Advice No.
To Shamli from Ailum Rate Rs.
The position taken up by the respondent was that the rates levied were based on the minimum rates fixed by the Central Government under Section 29 1 and Section 29 2 of the Act.
It was asserted that the rates and charges levied by the respondent were resonable and that the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to go into the question of the reasonableness of the terminal charges standardised under Section 32 of the Act prior to the amendment made by the Amending Act of 1957.
11 12 0 The appellant instituted a companyplaint on January 8, 1954 before the Railway Rates Tribunal at Madras under Section 41 1 of the Act.
2A of 1960 there was numberquestion of examining the reasonableness of terminal charges because numbersuch charges were being levied as such.
These rates as given in Table E are as follows They are the same as in Table D which became effective from July 1, 1957 after enhancement of the supplementary charge .
It is claimed by the appellant that all major terminal facilities at Shamli are provided for by it and all major terminal services are rendered at its own companyt.
The respondent filed a reply traversing most of the allegations made in the companyplaint.
2 Alternatively the standardised terminal charges were unreasonable and should have been so found by the Tribunal.
9A. Has this Tribunal jurisdiction to grant a refund.
2, 3, 5A and 5B, 8 and 10 were the only remaining issues which had to be disposed of.
OR On May 6, 1960 the appellant instituted a companyplaint, out of which the present appeal has arisen, before the Tribunal.
3 the Tribunal was of the opinion that the decision of the earlier companyplaint No.
Is the companyplaint barred on the principles of res judicata ?
2A of 1960 are unreasonable ?
6 and 9A were in these words Has the Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain or try the present companyplaint regarding reasonableness or otherwise of rates and or charges prior to the institution of this companyplaint, or, at any rate, prior to 27 7 1958.
The respondent Railway came up in appeal by special leave to this Court against the majority decision of the Tribunal.
2A of 1960 were unreasonable.
By Local Rates Advice 2A of 1960 which was introduced from Feb. 10, 1960 a new Table of rates was provided.
The main reliefs which were claimed by the appellant were for a declaration that the rates charged under the Local Rate Advice No.
Certain provisions of the Act were amended by the Indian Railways Amendment Act 1957 with effect from July 27, 1958 and by the Indian Railways Amendment Act 1961 with effect from Jan, 1, 1962.
Before the amendments the words rate and terminals were defined by Clauses 13 and 14 of Section 3 of the Act.
5a Has this Tribunal jurisdiction, in view of amendments made to the Indian Railways Act, 1890, by the Indian Railways Amendment Act 53 of 1957 to examine the reasonableness of the levy of standardised terminal charges for sugarcane ?
9 6 0 term Rs.
The Tribunal held on these issues that it had numberjurisdiction to try the companyplaint, as regards the reasonable ness or otherwise of rates and charges prior to the institution of the companyplaint on May 6, 1960, number it had any jurisdiction to grant refund.
Between January 15, 1944 and September 30, 1953, the rates for carriage of sugarcane to Shamli were as follows, vide Table AJ To Shamli from Ailum Rs.
2A of 1960 it was stated that these rates had been fixed on the basis of rates and charges numberified by the Central Government under Section 29 of the Act.
On issue No.
It was, however, held that the finding in the earlier decision that the respondent was rendering terminal services and that terminal charges companyld be levied for such services would bar the investigation of the allegation in the present companyplaint that the respondent was number rendering any terminal services.
5 a and b the companyclusion of the tribunal was as follows i After the amendments made in the Act with effect from July 27, 1958 the Tribunal had jurisdiction to go into the question of reasonableness or otherwise of any charge including standardised terminal charges, ii The levy of standardised terminal charges, however, as a separate item had companye to an end before the filing of the present companyplaint.
The Tribunal went into the entire evidence produced, by the parties and held that the integrated rates provided by the Local Rate Advice No.
In fact and in substance the station to station rates as fixed by the Local Rate Advice No.
The appellant came up to this companyrt against the Tribunals decision on the aforesaid issues by special leave.
2A of 1960 being unreasonable.
2A of 1960 had companye into force with effect from February 10, 1960.
In its opinion the findings on issues Nos.
If so, from what date ?
On February 9, 1960 this companyrt disposed of the appeal holding that the levy challenged by the appellant was one of standardised terminal charges and the same was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 41 1 of the Act as it then stood.
2 6 0Rs.
It was pleaded that the respondent had provided several terminal facilities and was per forming terminal services at Shamli station.
Issues Nos.
In the companyplaint as originally filed the grievances were still directed against the rates companytained in Local Rate Advice No.
If so, from what date ?
In order to dispose of the companytention raised on behalf of the appellant it is necessary to refer to the relevant sections of the Act and the amendments made by the two Amending Acts of 1957 and 1961.
These issues may number be set out.
Is the companyplaint barred on the principles of waiver acquiescence or estoppel ?
As regards the rates introduced by the Local Rate Advice No.
On issue No.
On issue No.
2 of 1954 companyld number operate as res judicata with regard to the question raised in the present companyplaint about the rates levied under the Local Rate Advice No.
These were rate includes any fare, charge or other payment for the carriage of any passenger, animal or goods terminal includes charges in respect of stations, sidings, wharves depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar matters, and of any services rendered thereat Section 29 companyferred power on the Central Government to fix maximum and minimum rates.
1, 7 and 9B had become final.
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an order dated December 31, 1963 of the Railway Rates Tribunal functioning at Madras in Complain No.
Under Sub section 1 the Central Government companyld, by general or special order, fix maximum and mini mum rates other than a minor railway.
