Gauhati High Court

Sri Bharat Ch. Das And Anr vs The Union Of India on 23 May, 2022

                                                                  Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010013122019




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/241/2019

         SRI BHARAT CH. DAS AND ANR
         S/O LATE DHANIRAM DEKA, BY PROFESSION CULTIVATOR, BY FAITH
         AND RELIGION HINDU, R/O VILL. BHUYAKHAT, P.O. BHUYAKHAT, P.S.
         KALAIGAON IN THE DIST. OF UDALGURI (BTAD), ASSAM, PIN 784509



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHEAST FRONTIER
         RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI 781011, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

         2:THE DIRECTOR
          INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
          PASCHIM BORAGAON
          GARCHUK
          GUWAHATI- 781035
         ASSAM

         3:THE INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
         AN AUTONOMOUS R AND D INSTITUTE OF DEPTT OF SCIENCE AND
         TECHNOLOGY
          GOVT OF INDIA
         VIGYAN PATH
          PASCHIM BORAGAON
          GARCHUK
          GHY- 35
         ASSAM

         4:THE REGISTRAR
          IASST
          PASCHIM BORAGAON
          GARCHUK
                                                       Page No.# 2/8

             GUWAHATI- 781035
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R Deka

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY

            Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2784/2018

            SMT KANIKA ROY AND ANR
            W/O LATE MANI ROY
            R/O VILL. DAKHIN BARUAPARA
            P.O. PAHARPUR
            P.S. KOTOWALI
            DIST. JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL)

            2: SRI AMIT ROY
            S/O LATE MANI ROY
             R/O VILL. DAKHIN BARUAPARA
             P.O. PAHARPUR
             P.S. KOTOWALI
             DIST. JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL)
            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
            N.F. RAILWAY
            MALIGAON
            GUWAHATI-11


            ------------
            Advocate for : MR D C K HAZARIKA
            Advocate for : SC
            NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA



             Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1941/2017

            SMT. SUFIYA KHATUN
            W/O LT. SURHAB ALI
            VILL. CHENGLIMARI
            P.S. BARPETA ROAD
            P.O. CHENGLIMARI
            DIST. BARPETA
            ASSAM
                                                                 Page No.# 3/8

PIN 781318


VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA

------------
Advocate for : MR.J MOLLAH
Advocate for : MR.A K SARKAR appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/859/2017

BIRESH DEY
S/O LATE BINOD DEY
R/O HAMRENG
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM.


VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
------------
Advocate for : MR.S ISLAM
Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA


Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/4207/2017

SRI ATUL GOGOI
S/O LATE GERELA GOGOI
R/O AHOM GAON
P.O. and P.S. SALIKIHAT
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
                                                   Page No.# 4/8

ASSAM.

------------
Advocate for : MR.S S S RAHMAN
Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA

Linked Case :

SRI BHARAT CH. DAS AND ANR

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA
------------
Advocate for :
Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA

Linked Case : MFA/114/2018

SRI PARAMANAND PASWAN AND ANR
S/O LATE SUNIL PASWAN
RESIDENT OF VILL MANULI
PS NAWADA
DIST NAWADA BIHAR

2: SMTI. SAKUNTI DEVI
W/O LATE SUNIL PASWAN
RESIDENT OF VILL MANULI
PS NAWADA
 DIST NAWADA BIHAR
VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
NR RAILWAY MALIGAON
GUWAHATI 11

------------
 Advocate for : MR D C K HAZARIKA
Advocate for : SC
 NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA


Linked Case : MFA/184/2017

SRI ATUL GOGOI
S/O LATE GERELA GOGOI
R/O AHOM GAON
                                                       Page No.# 5/8

P.O. and P.S. SALIKIHAT
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MS. N AHMED
Advocate for : SC
NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2747/2018

SRI PARAMANAND PASWAN AND ANR
S/O LATE SUNIL PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILL MANULI PS NAWADA
DIST NAWADA BIHAR

2: SMTI. SAKUNTI DEVI
W/O LATE SUNIL PASWAN
RESIDENT OF VILL MANULI
PS NAWADA
 DIST NAWADA BIHAR
VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
NR RAILWAY MALIGAON
GUWAHATI 11
------------
Advocate for : MR D C K HAZARIKA
Advocate for : SC
NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA

Linked Case : MFA/117/2018

SMT KANIKA ROY AND ANR
W/O LATE MANI ROY
R/O VILL. DAKHIN BARUAPARA
P.O. PAHARPUR
P.S. KOTOWALI
DIST. JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL)

2: SRI AMIT ROY
S/O LATE MANI ROY
                                                                          Page No.# 6/8

            R/O VILL. DAKHIN BARUAPARA
            P.O. PAHARPUR
            P.S. KOTOWALI
            DIST. JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL)
            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
            N.F. RAILWAY
            MALIGAON
            GUWAHATI-11

            ------------
            Advocate for : MR D C K HAZARIKA
            Advocate for : SC
            NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA


                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                       ORDER

Date : 23.05.2022

This is a common order for this batch of applications.

2. Heard Ms. J. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NF Railway.

3. This batch of applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

4. The question in these applications is as to whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for extending the time limit as prescribed in Section 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act of 1987(for short "the Act of 1987).

5. Section 23(3) of the Act of 1987 prescribes that every appeal under the said Act shall be preferred within a period of 90 days from the date of the order appealed against.

6. In Union of India Vs. Jasiruddin Talukdar reported in 2011 (2) GLT 497, this Page No.# 7/8

Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for extending the period as prescribed by 23(3) of the Act of 1987. Thereafter in Union of India Vs. Sushil Kumar(M/S and Ors.) reported in 2017 (5) GLT 542, this Court has again reiterated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for extending the period as prescribed by Section 23(3) of the Act of 1987.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kapil and Ors Vs. Union of India and Others and the decision of the Supreme Court in Chinitals India Ltd Vs. Vhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.

8. In Kapil and Ors.(supra), it was held as under :-

"To summarize, it is stated that in the absence of any specific exclusion of the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, either in the form of a specific provision or by necessary intendment or inference in the Claims Tribunal Act which is not a complete code in itself, specifically in view of the fact that the provisions of sections 4 to 24 are not directly or indirectly in conflict with any provisions relating to filing of an appeal before the High Court contained in the Claims Tribunal Act nor do the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act render any provision relating to the filing of the appeal contained in the Claims Tribunal Act otiose or redundant, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the filing of an appeal under section 23 of the Claims Tribunal Act by virtue of the provisions of section 29(2) of the Act. "

9. The judgment in Chinitals India Ltd(supra) relates to an appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and therefore, this judgment is not applicable in this case.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

11. This Court finds that the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court failed to persuade this Court to follow its decision. The reason is that the decision of this Court in Jasiruddin Talukdar(supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in Page No.# 8/8

various judgments. Therefore, this Court decided to accept the ratio laid down in Jasiruddin Talukdar(supra), where it has been held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 cannot be invoked for extending the limitation period by virtue of the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Act of 1987.

12. Accordingly, the present batch of applications are found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant