S.S. LIGHT RAILWAY CO., LTD. versus UPPERDOAB SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ANOTHER

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 09-02-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
J(undan Sugar 
Mills 
v. 
Ziyauddin 
Subba Rao J. 
February, 9 
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
a substantial question of law arose in the case and 
that it was 1voll within the powers of the Labour 
Appellate Tribunal to entertain the appeal. 
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
S.S. LIGHT RAIL\VAY CO., LTD. 
v. 
UPPERDOAB SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ANOTHER 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ). 
Railway Rates-Terminal charges fi~ed by Government-When 
leviable-Railway Rates Tribunal-Jurisdiction of-Indian Railways 
Act, I890 (IX of I890). SS, 3 (I4) 32 and 4I. 
In pursuance of s. 32 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (IX 
of 1890), the Central Government had by means of a notification, 
fixed certain rates of terminal charges for loading and unloading 
goods carried from one station to another by Railway. Inspite 
of this notification the appellant Railway Company did not levy 
any terminal charges in accordance with those rates up to a 
certain point of time and continued to charge at a rate which \Vas 
- then prevalent and in \vhich no terminal charges \Vere included. 
Subsequently, however, the Railway Company issued a Local 
Rates Advice by which terminal charges were added to the pre-
valent rates with the result that the total charges payable to the 
Railway by the respondent mills rose considerably. It was for 
relief against this increase that the mills made a complaint under 
s. 41 (r) (i) of the Indian Railways Act to Railway Rates Tribunal. 
The contention of the Railway Company, inter alia, was that as 
in increasing the charges the .Administration had merely applied 
standardised terminal charges as notified by the Central Govern-
ment no complaint could be made in respect thereof under s. 41 
(r) (i). 
The Tribunal by a majority held that this was not a case 
ot application ot a standardised terminal charge and so it had 
jurisdiction to consider the question, and they ordered a reduc-
tion of terminal charges from the total charges. On appeal by 
the Railway, 
Held, that the Railway Rates Tribunal had no jurisdiction 
either to investigate the reasonableness or otherwise of terminal 
charges levied by 
the 
Railway or to reduce the same. 
The charges sought to be levied by the Railway Adminis-
tration were " terminal charges" within the meaning of the 
-
I-
• 
.... 
-
.... 
.( 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
927 
Railways Act, and the proposed levy being in accordance -with 
r960 
the Government notification under s. 32 of the Act was nothing 
more than the application of standardised terminal charges. 
S. s. Light 
Irrespective of the fact of the actual user by any particular Railway Co. Ltd. 
consignor of the stations, sidings and other things mentioned in 
v. 
s. 3 (14) of the Railways Act, " terminal charges" were leviable Upper Doab Sugar 
by reason of the mere fact that these things had been provided 
Mills Ltd. 
for by the Railway Administration. 
Hall & Co. v. London Brighton and South Coast Railway, Co., 
(I885) IS Q. B. D. 505, considered. 
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
347of1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated April 20, 1955, of the Railway Rates 
Tribunal, Madras, in Complaint No. 2of1954. 
H. N. Sany<;tl Additional Solicitor General of India, 
Niren De. P. C. Chatterjee and P. K. Ghosh, for the 
appellant. 
N. C. Chatterjee, J.P. Aggarwalla, B. K. B. Naidu 
and I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1. 
B. K. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent 
No.2. 
1960. February 9. 
Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
DAS GUPTA, J.-When total char:ges payable in res-
Das Gupta J. 
pect of goods traffic carried by a Railway are increased 
by the Railway Administration on the basis of 
terminals fixed by the Central Government in pursu-
ance of s. 32 of the Indian Railways Act, has the 
Railway Rates Tribunal jurisdiction to investigate the 
reasonableness of the charge as thus increased ? That 
is the question raised in this appeal. The first 
respondent, the Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., manu-
factures sugar in its Mills situated at Shamli. The 
sugarcane needed as its raw material has to be brought 
by the Company from different places in the neigh-
bourhood. It is in this connection that the appellant-
Railway Company's services are required. 
The 
Railway Company carries the sugarcane in trucks 
from several stations on its line, to Shamli. As the 
Mills premises are situated a s

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