The Supreme Court held that Section 26 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890 does not bar civil suits for refund of wharfage or demurrage charges collected in excess or under ultra vires rules, as the Act provides no specific remedy in the Railway Rates Tribunal for such grievances.
Judgment of High Court and trial Court set aside; suits remanded to trial court for disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1964]
1963
'
"
RAICHAND AMULAKH SHAH
October 21
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.)
Indian Railway Act, 1890, s. 26-Construction of-Suit for refund of Wharfage and demurrage charges-If barred-" Wharfage" and" demurrage" meaning of-If terminals.
Suits were filed against the Union of India representing the Western Railway for the refund of amounts collected by the Westcm Railway as wharfagc and dcmurrage charges from the appellants. It was alleged in the plaint that Railway notifications and rules under which the Railway had charged the wharfage at two annas to four annas per maund per day were illegal and ultra vires and that in any view the railway had no power under the rules to collect charges from appellant-firm for the "free time" under the head of wharfage charges. The respondent pleaded that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and that rules were not ultra vires and money was not collected against the rules. Suits were dismissed by the trial court on the ground that they were barred under s. 26 of the Indian Railways Act. Revisions were also dismissed by the High Court. The appellants came to this Court by Special Leave. Accepting the appeals,
-<
Held, that s. 26 of the Indian Railways Act is not a bar to the maintainability of a suit for the refund of wh:- rfagc or demurrage charged in excess. The bar under s. 26 is not comprehensive. It is limited by the opening words "Except as provided in the Act" in the section. Two conditions must be complied with before applying s. 26. The railway administration should have done an act or omitted to do an act in contravention of the provisions of Chapter V of the Indian Railways Act and the Act should provide a remedy in respect of that act or omission. In the present case, the Act does not provide for any remedy for an aggrieved party to approach the Tribunal appointed under s. 34 of the Act for the refund of the amount collected in excess by the Railway Administration by way of wharfage or dcmurrage. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction .to decide whether the rules empowering the administration to collect wharfage or demurrage charges arc ultra vires or the amounts collected arc in excess of what is leviable under the rules.
Wharfagc and .demurragc arc charges in respect of goods unloaded from wagons and kept at the station and also in respect of the goods kept on a platform of the station, beyond the free time allowed for clearance under the rules. The said charges
149
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
5 S.C.R.
can certainly be described as charges ,in respect of the station and are terminals within the meaning of the definition of the term in the Act.
1963
Rai Chand Amu/akh Shah y,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 149 to 154 of 1959.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and Union of India order dated February 25, 1958 of the former Bombay High Court at Rajkot in Civil Revision Applications Nos. 46, 49 ,55, 57, 58 and 59 of 1958.
S.P. Sinha, Shahzadi Mohiuddin and M.l. Khowaja, for the appellants.
N.S. Bindra and R.N. Sachthey, for the respon· dents.
,
r
October 21, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SuBBA RAO J.-These six appeals filed by special leave raise a common question, namely whether the suits filed against the Western Railway for the refund of amounts collected from the appellantfirm as wharfage or demurrage would lie in a Civil Court.
Civil Appeals Nos. 152 and 153 of 1959 arise out of the suits filed for the recovery of the amounts collected from the appellant-firm by way of demurrage and the other appeals are filed for the recovery of amounts collected from the said firm by way of wharfage charges. It would be enough if we gave the particulars of the claim in one of the suits, for it was stated at the Bar that the claims for refund were similar in all the other suits. Excepting the plaint in Civil Suit No. 109 of 1957, the other plaints are not placed before us. We are, therefore, proceeding on the assumption that the relevant allegations in all the plaints are similar, particularly as the assertion of learned counsel for the appellants to the said effect was not questioned by learned counsel for the respondent.
Subba RaoJ.
Civil Suit No. 109 of 1957 was filed by the appellants in Civil. Appeal No. 149 of 1959 for recovery of a sum of R1:. 295 from the Union of India representing the Western Railway. The appellants are
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
( :tf
1963 a firm doing business in Surendranagar. The said firm received a consignment cf 125 bags of rice booked Rai Chand Amu-from Belanganj to Surendranagar railway station: lakh Shah At the time of effecting delivery of the said consignv: ment, the Station Master at Surendranagar recovered Union of India a sum of Rs. 275-7-0 from the appellant-firm as - wharfage charges. It is alleged in the plaint that Subba Rao J. the railway notifications and rules under which the railway had charged the wharfage at two annas to four annas per maund per day were illegal and ultra vires and that in any view the railway had no power under the rules to collect charges from the appellantfirm under the said rules for the "free time" under the head of wharfage charges. On those allegations the suit was filed for the refund of the amount col" lected by the said railway. The . defendant denied either that the rules were ultra vires or that it collected the amount contrary to the rules. It pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Similar suits were filed in respect of other amounts and similar contentions were raised. The learned Civil Judge dismissed all the suits on the ground that they were barred under s. 26 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (Act IX of 1890), hereinafter called the Act. The said firm in all the suits preferred revisions against the judgment of the Civil Judge to the High Court of Bombay at Rajkot. The High Court agreed with the view of the Civil Judge and dismissed the revisions. Hence the appeals.
The only question raised before us is whether s. 26 of the Act is a bar against the maintainability of the said suits in a civil court for refund of the said amounts collected from the appellant-firm by way of wharfage and demurrage charges.
To appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to notice the relevant sections of the Act. At the outset it may be mentioned that in the present appeals the amounts were collected between the years 1953 and 1955 and, therefore, we will be ignoring the later amendments made in the Act for the purpose of the present enquiry.
151
5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1963
Section 3(14) "terminals" includes charges in 1963 respect of stations, sidings, wharves, depots, . warehouses, cranes and other similar matters, Raz Chand Amu- and of any services rendered thereat." lakh Shah v.
Section 26. "Except as provided in this Act, Union of India no suit shall be instituted or proceeding taken for anything done or any qmission made by Subba Rao J. a railway administration in violation or contravention of any provision of this Chapter (Ch. V)."
Section 32. "The Central Government may, by general or special order, fix the rates of terminal and other charges for the whole or any part of a railway, and prescribe the conditions in which such rates will apply.
Section 34. (1) There shall be a Tribunal called the Railway Rates Tribunal, for the purpose of discharging the functions hereinafter specified in this Chapter.
Section 41. (i) Any complaint that a railway administration-
(c) is levying charges (other than standardised terminal charges) which are unreasonable,
•
may be made to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall bear and decide any such complaint in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
Section 45. Nothing in this Chapter shall confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal in respect of scales of charges levied by a railway administration for the carriage of passengers and their luggage, parcels, military traffic and traffic in railway materials and stores, and demurrage charges, except on a reference made to the Tribunal by the Central Government.
Section 46A. The decision of the Tribunal shall be by a majority of the members sitting and shall be final.
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1963 · Provided that where a single member of the Tribunal has heard and decided any matter, he may, Rai Chand Amu- in his discretion, give leave to any party to appeal lakh Shah to the Full Bench; and if an appeal is filed in pursuance v. of such leave, the decision of the Full Bench or of Union of India a majority of the members thereof, as the case may be, shall be final.
Subba Rao J.
Section 46B. The Tribunal may transmit any order made by it to a Civil Court having local jurisdiction and such Civil Court shall execute the order as if it were a decree.
Section 46C. In this Chapter, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
( d) "demurrage" means the charge levied after the expiry of the free time allowed for loading or unloading a wagon.
The scheme of the said provisions is clear. The Central Government fixes the rates of terminal and other charges for the whole or a part of a railway. If a railway administration levies charges other than the standardised terminal charges which are unreasonable, an aggrieved party may file a complaint against the administration before the Railway Rates Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal is final. In regard to 'demurrage charges mentioned in s. 45 of the Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect thereof, except by a reference made to the Tribunal by the Central Government. Section 26 bars the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts to entertain a suit or a proceeding for anything done or any omission made by the railway administration in violation or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V. In regard to such violation, an aggrieved party can only proceed in the manner provided by the Act.
The short question, therefore, is whether the said claims for refund are covered by the bar imposed by s. 26 of the act. As s. 26 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts, its provisions must be strictly construed. The bar is in respect of anything done or an omission
153
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
5 S.C.R.
made by the railway administration in violation or 1963 contravention of any provisions of Chapter V of the Act. If the opening words "Except as provided in Rai Chand Amu- this Act" in s. 26 of the Act are ignored, the bar ap- lakh Shah pears to be comprehensive, for it may take in its sweep v. any dereliction of duty by the railway administra- Union of India tion in respect of matters covered by the provisions of the said chapter. But such an intention to give Subba Rao J. a blanket licence to the railway administration to contravene the provisions of Chapter V of the Act shall not be attributed to the Legislature unless the section is very clear to that effect. The opening words "Except as provided in this Act" limit the operation of the bar. It can reasonably be interpreted to mean that the bar of a suit is limited to matters in respect whereof the Act has provided a remedy. So construed, before we apply the provisions of s. 26 of the Act, two conditions shall be complied with, namely, (i) the railway administration shall have done an act or omitted to do an act in contravention of the provisions of Ch. V and (ii) the Act has provided a remedy in respect of that act or omission. It was argued that the charges levied by the railway administration under the heads of "wharfage" and "demurrage" are "trerminals" in regard whereof rules were framed by the Government under s. 32 of the Act, that the complaint of the appellants was that the rates were collected in excess of those prescribed under the rules and that, therefore, s. 26 bars a suit for recovery of the same.
The first question, therefore, is whether wharfage and demurrage charges are "terminals". "Terminals" has been defined by s. 3(14) of the Act to include charges in respect of stations, sidings, wharves, depots, warehouses, cranes and other similar matters, and of any services rendered thereat. Under s.32 of the Act the Central Government may, by general or special order, fix the rates of terminal and other charges for the whole or any part of a railway, and prescribe the conditions in which such rates will apply. In order to find out whether wharfage and
154
[1964]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
'
1963 demurrage charges come under the definition of "terminals", it is necessary to ascertain the meaning Rai Chand Arnu-of the words "wharfage" and "demurrage" as under- lakh Shah stood by the Act and the rules made thereunder. v. There is no definition of "wharfage" in the Act. Union of India But s. 46C(d) defines demurrage to mean the charge levied after the expiry of the free time allowed for Subba Rao J. loading or unloading a wagon. But the rules, presumably made under the Act, give a clear idea of the meaning of these words. The relevant rule is r. 85 and it reads:
"The actual wharfage and demurrage rules locally in force on different railways are published in each Railway's Tariffs and may be ascertained on application at stations.
The following wharfage and demurrage rules were in force on the BJ~. & C.I. Railway, which is now named as the Western Railway. Clauses (A) and (B) thereof give the rates of wharfage and demurrage and clause (C) defines "demurrage" and "wharfage". Clause (C) reads:
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
155
5 S.C.R.
,
the end of the day following that on which the free time of six daylight hours, expires.
1963
Demurrage is therefore a charge levied on the Rail c::~ mugoods not unloaded from the wagons within the a a free time of six daylight hours and wharfage is the v. charge levied on goods not removed from the railway Union of India premises after the expiry of the free time allowed Subba Rao J. for that purpose. Indeed s. 46C(d) of the Act, which was ins1rted by Act 65 of 1945, has practically adopted the definition of the word "demurrage" given in the said rule. Wharfage and demurrage are, therefore, charges levied in respect of goods retained in the wagons or in the railway premises beyond the free time allowed for clearance under the rules.
The question is whether such charges are "terminals" as defined in the Act. The expression "terminal charges" was defined for the first time in the Indian Railways Act, 1890. It was taken from the definition in s. 55 of the English Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. Terminal charges are of two categories: (I) charges for services, and (2) charges for accommodation and appliances which facilitate business. The "service terminals" comprise of remuneration for the handling of goods at the terminal station i.e., where the railway employees are engaged in weighing, loading, unloading, etc. As distinguished from this "service terminals" there are "station terminals" which are charges for providing accommodation incidental to the business of a carrier, such as "working charges, repairs, renewals, insurance of station buildings, sidings, sheds, platforms, warehouses, cranes, hydraulic power, fixed appliances etc." Both demurrage and wharfage would fall within the head of "station terminals", because they are charges levied for the use either of the wagon or of the platform or goods-shed after the transit or conveyance is complete and is not incidental to the conveyance as such. Charges levied in respect of stations are included in the definition of "terminals" under the Act. As the wharfage and demt1rrage are charges in respect of goods unloaded from wagons and kept at the
[1964]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
156
t' II 14111
.I
1963 station, and also in respect of goods kept on platforms . - of the station, the said charges could certainly be des- Raz Chand Amu-cribed as charges in respect of the station. If so, lakh Shah it follows that the said charges are "terminals" within v. the meaning of the definition of the said expression Union of India in the Act.
Subba Rao J. Let us now see whether any remedy is provided by the Act for an aggrieved party to ask for a refund of the charges collected on the ground mentioned in the plaint. The Tribunal constituted under s. 34 of the Act has jurisdiction to decide whether the charges levied by the railway administration other than the standardised terminal charges were unreasonable. The Act does not provide for any remedy for an aggrieved party to approach the Tribunal for a refund of the amount collected by the railway administration by way of wharfage or demurrage on the ground that the rules empowering the said administration to do so are ultra vires or that the amounts so collected are in excess of wharfage or demurrage leviable under the rules. If the impugned charges are standardised terminal charges, the dispute in regard thereto falls outside s. 41 of the Act. If they are charges other than the standardised terminal charges, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined only to the question of its reasonableness. It has no jurisdiction to decide whether the rules empowering the railway administration to levy a particular charge are ultra vires or whether the railway administration collected amounts in excess of the charges which it can legally levy under a rule. If so, it is clear that no provision has been made under the Act giving a remedy to an aggrieved party to ask for a refund of amounts, such as those alleged to have been collected from the appellants. Section 26, therefore, cannot be a bar against the maintainability of the suits filed by the appellants.
We do not propose to express our view in this case, as it has not been argued before us, whether the demurrage charges in question fell within the meaning of the expression "demurrage charges" in
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 157
L
5 S.C.R.
s. 45 of the Act and, if so, whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal could only be invoked in the manner prescribed thereunder.
1963
prescribed thereunder. Rai Chand Amu- For the foregoing reasons we hold that both the lakh Shah High Court and the trial Court went wrong in disv. missing the suits on the ground that s. 26 of the Act Union of India was a bar against their maintainability. We, there- Subba Rao J. fore, set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court and remand the suits to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. We should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the other questions raised in the suits. The respondent will pay the costs of the appellants here.
The costs of the courts below will abide the result.
Suits remanded.
VORA ABBASBHAl ALIMAHOMED v.
HAJI GULAMNABI HAJI SAFIBHAJ
1963
October 22
(A.K. SARKAR, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.)
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, s. 12-Protection against eviction-Scope ofs. 12 (1)-"May" in 12(3) (a) whether mandatory-Protection of 12(3) (h) when available-S. 12, Explanation, effect of-"Standard rent"-Meaning of-Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court when exercisable-Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act 5of1908), s. 115.
The Appellant was the tenant of the respondent occupying of the latter premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 70. The appellant appealed to the Civil Judge for fixing standard rent under s. 11(1) and fo1 specifying interim rent under s. 11(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and deposited a ce1tain amount to the credit of the respondent. Subsequently the respondent filed a suit before the Civil Judge for evicting the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Civil
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 26 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890 bars a civil suit for refund of wharfage and demurrage charges.
Whether the definition of 'terminals' under the Act includes charges for wharfage and demurrage.
Whether Chapter V of the Act provides a remedy to approach the Railway Rates Tribunal for refund of such charges.
7 provisions across 1 enactments
Rai Chand Amulakh Shah
Union of India
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR
K. SUBBA RAO
K. N. WANCHOO
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
J. R. MUDHOLKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
