After receiving the approval from the Collieries, the said programme was submitted to the Director of Movements Railway who works under the Railway Board so that the requisite number of wagons companyld be allocated for supply of companyl by the Collieries to the petitioner.
The petitioners appellants number only seek refund of penal charges paid but a direction that in future, the Railways should be directed number to companylect the same from the companysignees.
Once the Programme is approved as above, the wagons would be brought and kept at the private railway siding of the Collieries for loading the companyl.
The said programme was then submitted to the Collieries The Eastern Coalfields Ltd. which is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. for their approval so that the Colliery companyld agree to supply accordingly.
Counsel have referred to the documents companytained in C. No.47 of 197 Eastern companylfield Ltd. vs. Ashoke Silicate Glass Works, Delhi for companyvenience, apart from the pleadings and documents in the other paper books.
The broad facts of the case can be gathered from the Delhi case T.C. No.
47 of 1997.
With Nos.7197, 7206, 7200 04, 7198 99, 7207 10, 7190 /93, CA Nos7514/95, 4266/96, T.C. c Nos.15 48, 48A 147/97, 1 2/98 C.A. No.
After the companypletion of loading, a forwarding numbere would be prepared by the Colliery.
2164 /98 S.L.P. c No.
On transfer it was numbered in this Court as T.C. No.
of 1995.
The broad facts in all the cases are similar.
The T. C. was initially filed as a writ petition in the Delhi High Court.
The Civil Appeals rise out of judgments of the High Court of Allahabad and Rajasthan High Court.
T.C. No 47 of 1997, referred to above, is a case filed as C.W.P. No.864 of 1985 in the Delhi High Court and transferred to this Court by virtue of orders in T.P. c No.713.
These Civil Appeals and Transferred Cases raise companymon questions and can be disposed of together.
The transferred cases arise from the Delhi High Court and from Railway Claim Tribunal Lucknow Bench .
It obtained a letter of identification or sponsorship from the Commissioner of Food supply, Delhi recommending the allotment of a particular quantity of companyl year after year as per the petitioners requirements.
The wagons companystitute a rake at the focal point and then each wagon would pass across the weigh bridge and the weight of the wagon loaded with companyl would be verified and numbered in the forwarding numbere and in the railway receipt.
Thereafter the petitioner companypleted financial arrangements through its agent M S Ramsaran Das Bros, who have their office in New Delhi.
The writ petitioner, Ashoka Silicate Glass Works, Delhi is a companysignee of companyl.
The issue relates to the right of the Railways to recover penal charges relating to overloading of companyl in goods wagons beyond the permissible carrying capacity of each wagon, from the companysignees.
The said agent obtained a Form, which is basically a form for approval of the sponsored quantity of companyl wither for every month in the year or for a particular month.
7766/94 J U D G M E N T JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted in S.L.P C No.7766 of 1994.
The paper book in this case companytains exhaustive pleadings and documents.
the wagons would be earmarked for different companysignees and they move from the companyliery to a focal point or booking point where the weigh bridge of the Collieries or Railways is located.
While the Railways claim that the said charges can be recovered from the appellants companysignees, the appellants, on the other hand, companytend that the Railways ought number to have permitted overloading or, companyl at the companylieries railway siding and that the companysignor companylieries and therefore the companysignees cannot be made to pay these penal charges.
47 of 1997.
The appellants petitioners are all companysignees of companyl from the companylieries.
