LexUNION OF INDIA versus WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A · UNION OF INDIA v. WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD: AND ANR. FEBRUARY 25, 2004 B [R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] Railways Act, 1890; Section 28/Limitation Act, 1963; Sections 14 and 15/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section BO/Constitution of India, 1950; C Article 136: Transport of goods to certain destination by rail-Benefit of telescopic system of rates denied-Complaint-Tribunal Held that Railways contravened Section 28 of the Railways Act-However, it did not direct ;·efund of freight charges collected illegally and unreasonably-Challenge to-Dismissed by D Supreme Court-Writ petition for refund of the freight charges-High Court holding that Court could not decide money claim in writ petition-Suit for money claim-Limitation-Notice period and time spent in writ proceedings- Exclusion of-Held: No malafides/want of good faith in instituting the writ proceedings-Cause of action arose when the dispute was finally adjudicated by Supreme Court-Two months' Notice period mandatory before filing a E suit-Period during which writ petition for identical relief on same cause of action remained pending and notice period could be excluded from computing period of limitation as per provisions in the Limitation Act-Thus, suit is not barred by limitation . F G H Railways Act, 1890-Section 78B. Illegal charges, vis-a-vis overcharges-Distinction between-Discussed. Words and Phrases: 'over charges '-Meaning of in the context of Limitation Act. Respondent-Mills had been transporting their goods to certain destination by Railways and Railways charged freight for transportation of the goods at a flat rate irrespective of the kind of the goods being transported thereby denying them benefit of telescopic system of rates in respect of 642 • r - - U.0.1 v. WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD. 643 different kinds of goods as being allowed by the Railways to others. Thus, A they had to pay freight in respect of certain kind of goods at a higher rate. One of the Mills filed a complaint against Railways under the provisions of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Railway Tribunal held that Railways had contravened the provisions of Section 28 of the Act However, it did not direct refund of freight charges, as the Tribunal was not competent to grant the B consequential relief in view of the Judgment of this Court in Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd v. Shahdara (Delhlj Saharanpur Light Railway Company Ltd., (1963) 2 SCR 333. The Union of India challenged the order by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Upholding the order of the Tribunal, Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on October 14, 1970. In the meanwhile, another complaint was filed by the respondent against Railways C on the same issue in respect of certain other commodities and a complaint on the similar issue was filed by the other respondent. Following the Judgment dated 14th October, 1970, Tribunal allowed these complaints as well. Respondent filed writ petition for refund of the amount of freight collected by the Railways in excess and in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that it would not be D appropriate to invoke writ jurisdiction for money claim and that the petitioner may file a civil suit for the claim. During pendency of the writ petition, Respondent served a notice under Section 80 CPC on the Union of India and the Railways and later filed suits for money claim, which were decreed by the frial court. On appeal, High Court upheld the order of trial court. Hence E the present appeals filed by the Union of India. It was contended for the appellant-Union of India that the suits were time-barred; and that since suits were not preceded by notification of claim under Section 78B of the Railways Act, these could not have been entertained. Expressing its doubts as to the .correctness of the decision of a 2-Judge Bench of this Court on the issue of limitation in the case of P.K. Kutty Achuta Raja and Anr. v. State of Kera/a and Anr., [1996) 2 SCC 496, this Court directed the matter to be placed before a 3-Judge Bench. 1he3-Judge Bench overruled F the earlier decision of 2-Judge Bench holding that the earlier order .of the Tribunal dated April 18, 1966 had merged into Supreme Court's Judgment G dated October 14, 1970; (Union of India and Ors. v. West Coast paper Mills Ltd. and Anr., (2004) 2 SCALE 285), and so the limitation would run from Oc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.