https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174249 Freight reasonableness under the Indian Railways Act was tested by reference to the burden on the challenger, and the Court held that a surplus over working cost alone did not make the rate unreasonable; differences in tariff treatment were justified because naptha was treated as a dangerous commodity requiring special precautions. A complaint of unequal class rates also failed because mere inequality does not establish contravention without proof of undue preference or legally relevant prejudice between comparable traffic. On promissory estoppel, the Court stated that a clear and unambiguous representation acted upon is sufficient, but a conditional or reviewable assurance does not create an enforceable estoppel; the special rate letter was not absolute and no binding concession arose. en-us Thu, 08 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:25:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174249 Freight reasonableness under the Indian Railways Act was tested by reference to the burden on the challenger, and the Court held that a surplus over working cost alone did not make the rate unreasonable; differences in tariff treatment were justified because naptha was treated as a dangerous commodity requiring special precautions. A complaint of unequal class rates also failed because mere inequality does not establish contravention without proof of undue preference or legally relevant prejudice between comparable traffic. On promissory estoppel, the Court stated that a clear and unambiguous representation acted upon is sufficient, but a conditional or reviewable assurance does not create an enforceable estoppel; the special rate letter was not absolute and no binding concession arose. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174249