9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in respect of other goods. The effect of the benefit of telescopic system of rates being denied to the respondents was that they had to pay freight on certain goods at three times compared to what would have been payable in case the benefit of telescopic system of rates was allowed to them. On 24th June, 1963. West Coast Paper Mills Limited filed a complaint (registered as Complaint No. 4/1963) against the Railway Administration complaining of illegality of account of contravention of the provisions of Section 28 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and of unreasonability on the part of the Railway Administrations in charging the freight at the impugned rates. The period for which the complaint related was 26th April, 1963 to 1st October, 1966 (both dates inclusive and inclusive of the period introduced into the complaint by way of amendment). By order dated 18th April. 1966, the Tribunal held that in devising the freight rates the Railway Administration had contravened the provisions of Section 28 of the Act and the complainant i.e. the respondent West Cost was treated with discrimination and unreasonableness. In spite of holding so, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Railway Administration to the extent it was in violation of the declaration given by the Tribunal. This writ petition, related to the period 26th April, 1963 to 1st October, 1966 and the freight realised by the Railway Administration during this period. This petition came to be dismissed on 29th October, 1973 by the High Court forming an opinion that for a money claim of the nature made in the writ petition, writ jurisdiction was not appropriate forum and the writ petitioner was at liberty to file a civil suit for the claim. The merits of the claim were not adjudged by the High Court and rightly so. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 5th October, 1973, West Coast Paper Mills Limited served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code ) on the Union of India as also on the General Manager of the Railways stating the Cause of action and the relief for the period referable to 26th April. 1963 to 14th August. l972 i.e. the periods covered by complaint Nos. 4/1963 and 4 1966. both. Dandeli Ferro Alloys also fled a suit on 18th April. 1974 in respect of their claim basing the cause of action on the judgment dated 12th November. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the 3- Judges Bench has referred the matter back to the present 2-Judges Bench for decision on facts and other Please, if any. Mr. P. P. Malhotra, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that even if it is assumed that the period of limitation commenced on 14th October, 1970, still the suit should have been filed on or before 14th October, 1973 and, therefore, the suit filed on 12th December, 1973 is barred by limitation. The plea cannot be upheld for two reasons. Firstly, the period of two months required by Section 80 of the Code where under notice is mandatorily required to be given before filing the civil suit has to be excluded from computing the period of limitation under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Secondly, the period between 5th January, 1972 and 29th October, 1973 during which the civil writ petition remained pending for the identical relief based on the same cause of action but which came to be dismissed by the High Court forming an opinion that civil suit was an appropriate remedy, is liable to be excluded from calculation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, Mr. Malhotra, the learned senior co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. The expression Other cause of like nature came up for the consideration of this Court in Roshanlal Kuthalia and Ors. v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberai. AIR (1975) SC 824 = (1975) 4 SCC 628 and it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where the defects are not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but others more or less neighbours to such deficiencies. Any circumstances, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the Court of the dispute on the merits conies within the scope of the Section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives the remedy of one who has right. The issue as to the legality and reasonability of the rates charged by the Railways Administration having been finally adjudicated upon by this Court, there is nothing wrong in the respondent West Coast Paper Mills Limited having proceeded on an assumption that what had remained to be done was a simple direction to the Railway Administration to refund the amount of freight to which it had already been adjudged not entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on his behalf - (a) to the Railway administration to which the animals or goods were delivered to be carried by railway, or (b) to the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies, or the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred, within six months from the date of the delivery of the animals or goods for carriage by railway: xxx xxx xxx The crux of the controversy is whether the claim preferred by the respondents can be said to be a claim for refund of an 'overcharge'. The term overcharge is not defined in the Act. In its dictionary meaning overcharge means a charge of a sum more than as permitted by law [see. The Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1997 Edition. Page 1389]. The term came up for the consideration of the High Court of Gujarat in M/s Shah Raichand Amulakh (D) by his heir v. Union of India and Ors., (1971) 12 GLR 93. Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) interpreted the term by holding that Overcharge is not a term of art. It is an ordinary word of the English language which according to its plain natural sense means any charge in excess of that prescribed or perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
