UNION OF INDIA versus MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. (P) LTD.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 13-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. (P) LTD. 
December 13, 1968 
(S. M. SIKR!, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Indian Railways Act (10 of 1940), ss. 29(2) & 41(1) (c)--Scope of-
Jurisdiction of Rt;-i/way R·ates Tribunal to decide question not raised in 
pleading. 
Supreme Court-Appellate Jurisdiction -Scope of. 
The Railway enhanced the haulage charges for shunting operations 
done at the assisted siding provided for the respondent's factory. The re_"""' 
pondent filed a complaint to the Railway Rates Tribunal under s. 41(1) (cJ 
of the Railways Act which provides that the Tribunal shall decide 
any 
complaint of "any other charge which is unreasonable". 
While the com-
plaint was pending the Railway increased the charges for maintenance of 
the assisted siding. 
The Tribunal determined that the charges that were 
being recovered by the Railway were unreasonable and unjustified. In 
appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that (i) on the pleadings the 
Tribunal was not justified in adjudicating upon the charges levied for the 
maintenance of tho assisted siding; (ii) this Court in Union of India v. 
Indian Sugar Mills Association, [19'67] 3 S.C.R. 219 correlated s. 41(l)(c) 
to s. 29(2) which empowers the Central Government to "fix the rates of 
any other charges", that the word "rates" in s. 29(2) must be given the 
same meaning as the definition of the word "rate" in s. 2(13)i namely, 
" 'rate' includes any fare, charge or other payment for carriage of any 
passenRer, animal or goods", and that therefore the jurisdiction of the T'ri~ 
bunal under s. 41(1)(c) is confined to carriage of goods and not hauling 
charges; and (iii) the Tribunal erred in holding that the Railway was not 
entitled to haulage charges. 
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. 
(i) The rule that no evidence can be looked into upon a plea which 
was never put forward, has no application to a case where parties go to 
trial with knowledge that a pan:icular que·stion is in issue, though no 
specific issue has been framed thereon, and when evidence relating thereto 
had been adduced. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the Railway 
was ready with the required evidence and no prejudice had been caused 
to it. [79 DJ 
Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shame- Rao, [1956] S.C.R. 451, referred to. 
Rani Chandra Kunwar v. C/laudhri Narpat Singh, (1906-7) L.R. 34 
I.A. 27, applied. 
Siddik Mohomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, A.1.R. 1930 P.C. 57, referred to. 
(ii) The definition of 'rate' in s. 2(13) cannot be applied to the ex-
pression 'fates of any other charges' in s. 29(2). Here the word 'rates' 
merely means the scale or amount ·of any other charges. f~ 1 A-BJ 
Union of India v. Indian Sugar Mills Association, [1967)" 3 S.C.R. 219, 
referred to. 
(iii) No reason was shown for displacing the finding of fact by the 
Tribunal that the claim for the haulage charge for shunting operation done 
76 
SUPREME CO!JR! R£POR!S 
(1969) 3 S.C.R. 
at the assisted siding was unjustified and unsustainable. This Court is not 
A 
sitting as a regular court Of appeal front decisions of the Tribunal, and in 
such case does not ordinarily go intQ questions of fact. [82 BJ 
CIVIL APllBLLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 732 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and. order dated 
B 
March 25; 1965 of the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras in Com-
plai,nt.No, 3 of 1963; 
N. S. Bindra and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
P. K. Chatterjee; for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This _appeal by special leave is directed against the 
order of the Railway Rates Tribunal hereinafter referred to as 
the Tribunal at Madras, dated March 25, 
1965, 
determining 
reasonable rates at which siding charges can be recovered from 
the complainants, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. now 
respondent before u~. The. Tribunal determined that the existing 
ch;uges being recovered by the North Eastern Railway were un-
reasonable and unjustified and that the railway was not entitled 
to r=ver any charge for the haulage of the wagons over the 
assisted siding. 
A similar appeal was. decided by this Court in Union of India 
v. The Indian Sugar Mills Association(').· It was decided in that 
case that the c@mplaint to the Tribunal was competent under s. 
41 ( 1 )( c) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. 
Mr. Bindra, the_ learned counsel for the appellant, has raised 
in substance three points before us : ( 1) 

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