HINDALCO INDUSTRLES LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 16-12-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HINDALCO INDUSTRlES LTD. 
v. 
UNiON OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 16, 1993 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Railways Act, 1989-Section 38(2)-Discretionary relief-Railwajl' Rate 
Iribunal gtanting relief from date of its order-Not from date of com-
C plaint-Validity of-Absence of corum in the Tribunal-Non-filling up of posts 
of Chairman or Member-Delay in adfudication-Whether a relevant cir-
cumstance for granting relief from earlier date-Anciliary relief-Discretion of 
Tribunal to grant. 
The appellant-company, manufacturl~g Aluminum metal and its 
D semis; was consigning raw material used IJy it from one of its min~s for 
carriage. Jo another place. The consignment was being carried by the 
railway ro.u.!_e covering a,hmger distance of 714 km. Though the distance 
was subsequently rtduced to 568 kms. by the consignment being carried 
by a different route, after a new railway line was laid, the freight charges 
for physical distance of 714 kms. continued to be charge. The rate was Rs. 
E 13.75 per quintal per km., which was later increased to Rs. 16_.57 per 
-- guintal per km. Therefore, the appellant laid a claim under Section 36{b) 
bf the Railways Act, 1989, seeking a declaration that the rates charged on 
an inflated dista~ce of 714 kms. was wholly unjustified and unreasonable 
and for a direction to the Railways to charge reasonable rates on the basis 
F of the actual distance of 568 kms. 
The respondent-Railway justified the levy of the freight charges at 
7H km. distance. 
The Railway Rate Tribunal held that the continued levy on freight 
G rate for ~e movement of complainant's traffic for a distance of 714 km. 
by infltg the dista~ce between two particular Railway Stations by 55% 
was un 
sonable; a?d t.he respondent should levy the freight charges for 
the co plainant's traffic on the basis of the actual distance only. This 
relief was granted from the date of order, though the· appellant sought 
H relief from the date of the complaint. 
964 
r_ 
I 
-
HINDALCO v. U.0.1. 
965 
In the appeal filed before this Courts, on behalf of the appellant· A 
company it was contended that the Tribunal having found that the imposi· 
tion of rate on th'e inflated distance being unreasonable, ought to have 
granted th~ relief from the date. of the complaint, that it was admitted by 
the Railways that the corum to decide the complaint was not filled by 
appoi.nting ~ither the Chairman or the Member of the Tribunal from B 
November 11, 1987 to May 18,1991, resulting in delay in adjudication; and 
that the finding that there was no proof of h~rt was n.:it relevant cir· 
cumstance to deny relief to the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Railway Rate Tribunal, while holding that the c 
continued levy of freight rate on the consignment at the old distance of 714 
km. was •mreasonable, and directing the Railway to charge the freight on 
the basis of the actual distance of 568 kms. only, granted the relief from 
the date of judgment. It being a discretionary relief and the Railways Act, . 
1989 having left that discretion to the Tribunal, it felt that it would be just D 
give relief from the date of judgment to meet the ends of justice. The 
appellant is not, as of right entitled to the reliet No doubt, the statute 
postulates that the relief cannot be granted anterior to the date of the 
complaint. That does not mean that the Tribunal is always bound to grant 
relief from the date of the complaint. By operation of sub-section(2) of E 
section 38 the Tribunal has been invested with the discretion to grant such 
relief as is warranted. The Tribunal having thus exercised the discretion 
and limited the relief from the date of the judgment, it cannot be termed 
as illegal. It cannot also be held that it arbitrarily or unjustly exercised 
the discretion. [970-C·F] 
· 
F 
1.2. Undoubtedly there was delay in constitution of the proper corum 
of the Tribunal, to discharge its function under the Act and thereafter, 
there was consequential delay in disposal of the cause. These cannot be 
characterised to be the court causing hurt to the litigant but of inevitable 
incidents of the adjudication and that by i_tself is not a ground to grant or. G 
ought to be granted the relief asked for. Nevertheless, if the tribunal feels 
that the relief may be just and equitable, it is always open to the Tribunal 
to grant it which includes power to refuse to grant the relief. [970·B·C] 
Associated Provincial Picture Hous

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.