Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The plaintiff-appellant sued the respondent-defendants, the Union of India and the Western Railway, for recovery of Rs. 1,680.06 nPs. The plaintiff-appellant is the Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd., Petlad. It filed a Civil Suit NO. 213 of 1959 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Petlad to recover the aforesaid amount.

2. The undisputed facts in that suit are as under:-

3. The plaintiff had entered into a contract for a railway siding at Petlad for their mills with the then B.B. & C.I. Railway Company Administration. That agreement is Ex. 33, dated 20-1-1922. The said agreement was continued when the Union of India took over the Administration of all the Indian Railways. By a letter, dated 3rd Sept., 1955. Ex. 21, the General Manager of the Respondent No. 2, Railway, intimated to the plaintiff that the agreement regarding siding facilites of the plaintiff would be terminated after six months from 1st October, 1955 if the plaintiff did not agree to revised rates as proposed by the defendant No. 2, Railway Administration. There was some correspondence between the Railway and the plaintiff, which resulted in a letter from the Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway, Baroda, dated 24-1-1957, informing the plaintiff amongst other things that the revised charges mentioned in the notice, dated 3rd September, 1955 will be effective from the date of the said notice, i.e., 3-9-1955. After some further correspondence, the plaintiff received a letter, dated 21st February, 1957, Ex. 23 from the Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway, Baroda, intimating it that the revised agreement containing the revised charges should be executed early and failure to do so, will result in siding being disconnected by the respondent-defendant No. 2. The plaintiff thereupon having no other alternative, agreed to execute a draft agreement sent to it and sent that agreement with the necessary copies duly signed with its letter, Ex. 24, dated 25th February, 1957, It also remitted a sum of Rs. 75/- for stamp charges as required by the said letter, dated 21st February, 1957. After about 10 months, the plaintiff received a letter from the Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway, Baroda, dated 22nd January, 1958, Ex. 26. It was stated that letter that the Railway was proposing to put into effect the revised charges mentioned in its notice, dated 3-9-55, from 5-11-1951. That was the date on which the B.B. & C. I. Railway was integrated into the Western Railway and not from 3-9-1955 as mentioned in its earlier letter, dated 24th january, 1957. With that letter, the defendant No. 2 sent a bill of Rs. 2,876.93 nPs, being the difference between the old rates and new rates from 5-11-1951 to 30-9-1958. On receipt of it, the plaintiff took objection to it and stated that such a retrospective effect of revised charges could not be made effective legally and that they were always ready and willing to pay the revised charges frm 3-9-1955, for which the plaintiff had approved the draft agreement as required by the Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway, Baroada. Some correspondence ensued between the parties, but the plaintiff's request ws not acceded to. The plaintiff was sent a letter Ex. 27, dated 27-6-58, informing finally that if it did not pay the bill as mentioned within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the letter, the Sation Master, Petlad was informed to discontinue the siding facilities from that date and that the Station Master, Petlad shall not permit any traffic on the siding from the said date. The plaintiff had thereupon paid under protest the amount demanded by its letter, Ex. 28, making a specific mention that the demand was illegal and it was paying the amount under protest. The plaintiff gave the necessary notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code thereafter on 21st December, 1958 and thereafter filed the present suit for recovery of the amount paid in exercise. The suit claim was made as under:-

"Rs. 2,876.93 nPs. . . . Amount demanded at the revised rates for the period from 5th November, 1951 to 30th September, 1958 as per statement from Divisional Superintendent, Baroda, paid on 2nd July, 1958 and 16th October, 1958.

Less:-

Rs. 1,291.87 nPs. . . . Amount due at revised rates from 3rd September, 1955 to 30th September, 1958.

Add:-

Rs. 80.00 nPs. . . . By way of damages from 2nd July, 1958 till date of suit.

Rs. 15.00 nPs. . . . Notice charges.

Rs. 1,680.06 nPs. Total."

4. The defendants by their written statement Ex. 11, contended inter alia that the Railway had authority to withdraw the facilities of siding afforded to the plaintiff. A notice was given for the same. The Railway had revised rates were to be put into force from 5th November, 1951. The plaintiff had an option not to avail of that opportunity of continuance of siding facilities. The plaintiff did not avail of that opportunity and acceded to the request made by the Respondent No. 2, Railway. It could not, therefore, be said that the amount was recovered under coercion and duress. The plaintiff had, therefore, no right of repayment.

5. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mr. M.A. Baqui who heard the aforesaid suit, decreed the plaitniff's suit with costs. The following decretal order was made on 11th August, 1960:-

"Plaintiff's suit is decreed. Defendants shall pay Rs. 1,680.06 nPs. Together with cost of the suit and together with 6 per cent interest thereon from the date of the suit till realisation within 6 months in default of which plaintiff shall be entitled to recover that amount from the defendnats by due process of law. Defendants shall bear their own costs."