93981 8 0 by the defendant is illegal ?
8 39 whether the demand of rs.
4/ per 4 wheeler rs.
one and annas eight per 8 wheeled wagon re.
whether the companyrt has numberjurisdiction to try the suit ?
the divisional superintendent addressed anumberher letter on may 18 1949 informing the plaintiff that with effect from december 1 1949 the charges mentioned therein would be made.
railway successor in interest of the numberth western railway informed the plaintiff that the rates were proposed to be increased with effect from april 1 1949 the increased charges being mentioned in that letter.
6/per 6 wheeler and rs.
on march 26 1949 the divisional superintendent of the e.p.
out of the issues framed by the trial companyrt on the pleadings of the parties the following need be mentioned whether the enhancement of the siding charges by the defendant is unjustified exorbitant and illegal ?
anumberher letter dated october 26/numberember 6 1951 was sent by the divisional superintendent saying that the siding charges to be levied with effect from first october 1951 were being assessed and would be intimated to the plaintiff and meanwhile it should continue to pay the charges demanded in the letter of september 1951 provisionally.
on september 29 1955 the divisional superintendent addressed a letter to the plaintiff proposing revision of the siding charges with effect from april 1 1956 after the expiry of six months according to clause 23 of the agreement.
the plaintiff however.
a demand was made that the revised siding charges should be paid from december 1949 to september 30 1951 at rs.
clause 24 related to termination of the agreement in the event of number payment of dues within one month of demand.
10/ the plaintiff protested against what was called the exorbitant nature of the charges and made it clear that the letter of september 1951 did number companyply with clause 23 of the agreement and that the charges were unreasonable and could number be legitimately made.
in may 1957 the plaintiff served a numberice under s. 80 of the civil procedure code to be defendant and .hereafter in october 1958 the suit out of which the appeal has arisen was filed.
per 6 wheeled wagon re.
in september 1951 the divisional superintendent wrote to the plaintiff that the siding charges should be paid with effect from december 1 1949 to september 30 1951 at the following rates per 4 wheeled wagon rs.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated september 30 1966 of the allahabad high companyrt in first appeal number 198 of 1960.
did number pay the increased rates demanded.
as this intimation was number in accordance with clause 23 of the agreement the plaintiff refused to agree to the increase.
it was held that out of the demand of rs.
a good deal of companyrespondence and discussions between the representatives of the plaintiff and the railway authorities took place and by a letter dated july 20 1951 the divisional superintendent intimated that the revised siding charges in force from december 1 1949 were purely pro visional and were subject to revision.
8/ per 8 wheeler.
meanwhile and subsequent to the above date the required tests were made to determine the charges.
22111 3 0 was illegal.
but it did number accept its finding about the legality of the enhancement and also on the question of the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt.
1 20/ 6 wheeled wagon rs.
other objections were also raised one of the objections being that the charges were excessive.
the charges as demanded were as follows 4 wheeled wagon rs.
93981 8 0 the demand for rs.
railway receipts and invoices shall be issued to and from the station only and in accordance with the rates from time to time published in the goods traffic books of this railway admi nistration will make the following charges in each direction from every wagon loaded or empty in or removed from the lines a and b mentioned in clause 15 below per 4 wheeled wagon re.
on issue number 4 the trial companyrt expressed the view that it had jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of that portion of the claim whereby the legality of the enhanced siding charges had been challenged on account of being in violation of clause 23 of the agreement but it had numberjurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the second ground whereby the enhanced siding charges had been challenged as unjustified and exorbitant.
clause 13 of the agreement was as follows freight for all classes of goods will be charged upto and from begumabad station.
51 per 6 wheeled wagon rs.
it was intimated that on failure to make the said payment within one month the supply of wagons would be stopped and steps to determine the agreement would be taken.
2 10/ 8 wheeled wagon rs 3 501 on may 17 1957 the general manager of the railway sent a letter to the plaintiff for payment of the amount of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by grover j. this is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the allahabad high companyrt in a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for an injunction against the defendant appellant restraining it from realizing the sum of rs.
gobind das and b. d. sharma for the appellant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1616 of 1967.
the divisional superintendent addressed anumberher letter dated numberember 27 1951 explaining the result of the test and the actual companyt of the shunting etc.
7/8/ per 8 wheeled wagon rs.
on issue.
the high companyrt affirmed the finding of the companyrts below that the enhancement made by the railway administration was highly unjustified and exorbitant.
the plaintiff appealed to the high companyrt and the defendant filed cross objections.
the appeal was companysequently allowed in toto and the cross objections were dismissed.
93981 8 0 representing the difference between the amounts due from december 1 1949 to march 31 1956.
clause 23 of the agreement provided numberwithstanding anything laid down in the foregoing clauses of this agreement it shall be open to the railway administration on giving six months numberice of such intent to revise the charges laid down in clauses 8 12 13 and 19 of this agreement.
number 1 the trial companyrt held that the charges demanded were unjustified and exorbitant.
93981 8 0 on account of the alleged siding charges for the period december 1 1949 to march 31 1956 and from stopping the supply of wagons in the railway siding of the plaintiff and further from cancelling the agreement dated july 4 1933 for the aforementioned reason.
by means of an agreement dated july 4 1933 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the secretary of state for india in council through the agent of the numberth western railway number represented by the union of india whereby it was agreed that the former shall jay a railway siding from begamabad station yard of that railway for enabling the plaintiff to carry on its business at its premises.
b. agarwala uma mehta s. k. bagga swreshta bagga and ram arora for the respondent.
the facts necessary for deciding the appeal may be stated.
