LexUNION OF INDIA versus E.I.D. PARRY (INDIA) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA v. E.l.D. PARRY (INDIA) LTD. FEBRUARY 1, 2000 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure 1908, ss. 9 and 96-Railways Act 1890 r/w. Goods Tariff Rules, Part IA-Respondent's suit against Appellant for recovery of demurrage charged by railways for failure to unload wagons in time decreed A B by trial court-High Court in appeal maintaining decree but striking down Part C 1A of the Tariff Rules as ultra vires-Held, in the absence of any pleading to the effect that the rules were ultra vires, High Court could not decide that question-Practice and Procedure. The Respondent's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,333.61 charged as demurrage by the Railway Administration on account of failure to un- D load m1gons within the free time, was decreed by tht: trial court for Rs. 966 with 6% interest. The decree was set aside by the first Addi. District Judge. The High Court, while maintaining the decree passed by the trial court, struck down Part lA of the Goods Tariff Rules whereunder even if E one wagon was detained for unloading beyond the prescribed free time :~ demurrage would be levied on all the box wagons in the group. Before this court the appellant contended that there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the validity of the rules in question. Partly allowing the appeal, this Court Held : The High Court travelled beyond the pleadings in declaring the Rule to be ultra vires. A question, which did not form part of the pleadings or in respect of which the parties were not at variance and which F was not the subject matter of any issue, could not be decided by the court. G [539-D-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1763 of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.82 of the Andhra Pradesh H 537 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R. A High Court in S.A. No. 674 of 1979. V.C. Mahajan, K.N. Shukla, A.D.N. Rao, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Kitty Kumaramangalam, C.V. Subba Rao and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellant. B B. Kanta Rao for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. SAGHIR AH.MAD, Jr. Respondent's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,333.6lp. charged as d<:murrage by the Railway Administration on C account of failure to unload wagons within the free time, was dccn:ed by the trial court, namely, the District Munsif at Guntur, for Rs. 966 with interest at the rate of 6 per c:cnt per annum. The decree was set aside by the first Addl. District judge., Guntur, on the ground that all the ten box wagons through which bulk - rock phosphate fertiliser was transported D from Vishakhapatnam Port to Krishna Canal Railway Station had reached destination and thereafter shunted to the respondent's siding on May 5, 1971 at 3.30 A.M. and during the course of unloading, which commenced at 6.30 A.M., only five wagons wen: unloaded by 9.0G A.M. wi:hin the free time available to the respondent, and since all the ten box wagons were not unloaded, the Railways were entitled to levy demurrage for all the 10 E wagons under the Rules. The lowt:r appellate court had placed rt:liance upon the Goods Tariff Rules of the Southern Railway, Part 1-A, which F provides as under : ~ "The entire group of box wagon placed for unloading will be treated a& one unit for tht: purpose of levy of demurrage charges, i.e., even if one wagon out of the group of two or more is detained for unloading beyond the prt:scribed free time, the demurrage will be levied on all the box wagons in the group." The above Rule was struck down by the High Court in the Second G Appeal as ultra vires and the: decree passed by the trial court was main- tained. In the present appeal, which is directed against the judgment of the ...- High Court, it is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no occasion for the High Court to have looked H into the validity of the Goods Tariff Ruic quoted above or to hold that U.O.L v. E.I.D.PARRY (INDIA) LTD. [S. SAGHIRAHMAD,J.j 539 Rule to be ultra vires tht:: Railway Act, 1890. This contention appears to be A absolutely corrt::ct. The suit was filed for the recovery of t::xcess dcmurragc allegcdly charged by the appdlant from the respondent. The claim depended upon Goods Tariff Ruks, specially the Ruic quoted above, which authorises thc respondent to claim damages in respect of the cntire block of wagons supplied to a party who does not empty those wagons at t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.