LexRAIGARH JUTE MILLS LTD. versus EASTERN RAILWAY AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JI.larch a4. , , 236 SUPREME COURT REPOR'FS [1959) RAIGARH JUTE MILLS LTD. v. EASTERN RAILWAY AND ANOTHER (S. R. DAS c. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS, GAJENDRAGADKAR and VIVIAN BOSE JJ.) Railway Rates~Freight charges-Complaint of u11duc pri!- ference-Unreasonable and excessive rates-Competitive trajftc- Indian Railways Act, r890 (9 of I890), ss. 28, 4r . • The appellant company owned jute mills situated in Raigarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and it had to bring raw material from many railway booking stations outside the State as there was no other means of transport both for bringing jute to the mills and for carrying the finished products to ports for exl'ort to foreign countries; the jute mills in West Bengal and Madras had facilities for direct shipment of their goods without carriage by rail to the ports, and so the prices of the products of the ll'ppel- lant conld not be brought down to the competitive level for the purposes of export out of, or sale in, India. Th.e appellant filed a complaint before the Railway !<ates Tribunal under s. 41 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, on the allegations that the Railway administration had contravened the provisions of s. 28 of the Act in that it had offered special rates for certain stations in its zone to Kanpur which were cheaper than those that were charged between Raigarh and some other railway stations, and that the c!larges levied for the freight of the appellant's goods were un- reasonable and excessive. The Tribunal found that competition between the goods of the Kanpur mills and the appellant's £Oods had not been alleged or proved in the present case : Held, that the mere fact rtiat the goods of the Kanpur mills are transported at more favourable rates would not attract the provisions of s. 28 of the Act, unless there is competition between the goods of the Kanpur mills and the appellant's goods, and undue preference has been sho,vn by the railway administration to•the appellant's competitor. • Nitshill and Lesmahagow Coal Company v. The Caledonian,.,,' Rail1~ay Company, (1874) II Railway an<l Canal Traffic Cases, 39, Denaby Main Colliery Company v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Rail'lllay Company, [1886] II App. Cas. 97, Lancashire Patent Fuel Company Limited v. London and North-Western Rail- way Company, (1904) XII Railway and Canal Traffic Cases, 77 and Lever Brothers, Limited v. Midland "Railway Cumpany, (1909) XIII Railway and Canal Traffic Cases, 301, relied on. <, Held. further, that in considering the question as l;o tLe ~ reasonableness of the railway freight the relevant factors would mainly be the working costs of the railway a~ministration and • • s.c.R. ~UPREME COURT REPORTS 237 other material circumstances, and neither the geographical loca- tion of the appellant on account of which it has to incur additional expenses of transport, nor the cost incurred in producing the jute goods nor the commodity prices prevailing in the market, have. any relevance. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 231of1954. • Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 17, 1953, of the Railway Rates Tribunal at Madras.in Complaint Case No. 5 of 1952. S. '0. Isaacs and R. O. Prasad, for the appellant. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India; H.J. Umrigar and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 1958. March 24. The J 1,1dgment of the Court was delivered by Raigarl• jute Mills ftd. v.· Easterr• Railway G AJENDRAGADKAR J .-This is an appeal by special Gajendragadka• J. leave against the order passed by the Railway Rates Tribunal, hereinafter called the tribunal, at Madras dismissing the appellant's complaint under s. 41 of the Indian Railways Act (9 of 1890), to be described here- inafter as the Act.. The appellant, Raigarh Jute Mills Ltd., is a limited company owning jute mills which are situated in Raigarh .in. Madhya Pradesh. For the I1ro- duction of jute goods, the appellant has to bring raw material, viz., jute from many railway booking stations outside the State of l\fadhy~ Pradesh and there is no other means of transport except by rail both for bring- ing jute to the mills and for carrying the finished pro" ducts to ports for export to foreign' countries. In its complaint, the appellant has alleged that the raih1,ay administration had contravened the provisions of s. 28 . of the Act and also that the charges levied by the ' railw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.