Gauhati High Court
M/S Bajaj Steel vs The Union Of India And Anr on 21 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010079112021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/97/2021
M/S BAJAJ STEEL
N.T. ROAD, P.O. LAKHIMPUR-787001.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 781011.
2:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY
11-GARDEN RICH ROAD
KOLKATA- 700043
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K P MAHESWARI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG
ORDER
Date : 21-09-2022
Heard Ms. C. Saha, learned counsel for the appellant alongwith Mr. H.P.
Guwala appearing on behalf of Mr. B.K. Das, for Railway Standing counsel and Mr.
Page No.# 2/5
R. Das appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
2] This is an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
against the Judgment & Order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Miscellaneous Application No. MA/GHY/2014/0021.
3] Ms. C. Saha, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that in the
Misc. Application for condonation of delay of 17 months and 10 days to 06 months
and 18 days in preferring the claim application for refund of Rs.2,34,154/- under
section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the learned Tribunal had rejected
the Misc. Application without evaluating the reasons stated and rejected to condone
the delay of 17 months and 10 days to 06 months and 18 days stating that the
reasons cited for the delay are not sufficient and not acceptable.
4] The reason for the delay was that the appellant/applicant was awaiting for the
outcome of a judgment of the Gauhati High Court on the issue of refund of terminal
charges which is the central issue of the claim application for which the Misc.
Application has been preferred and subsequently the matter is now under challenged
by the Railway before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the second reasons is owing to the
illness of appellant/applicant counsel's father for which the counsel was not able to file
the claim application within the prescribed limitation period.
5] Mr. H.P. Guwala, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue
Page No.# 3/5
regarding condonation of delay has been decided by this Court in case No.
MFA/54/2001 dated 21.7.2022, wherein several similar applications in preferring the
appeal which raised a common question as to whether the Railway Claims Tribunal
was justified in dismissing the claims applications being barred by limitation, was
taken up. All the appeals raised the same question of law and were predominantly of a
similar fact, this Court in the common judgment dated 21.7.2022 disposed of the
appeals and that the instant case is also of a similar nature and is covered by the
decision of this court in case No. MFA/54/2001.
6] Having heard the submission of both the learned counsels and on perusal of the
Judgment and Order dated 21.7.2022 passed by a coordination bench of this Court in
case No. MFA 54/2001, wherein the appeals in MFA No.54/2021, MFA No.15/2021,
MFA No.16/2021, MFA No.18/2021, MFA No.21/2021, MFA No.20/2021, MFA
No.22/2021, MFA No.23/2021, MFA No.24/2021, MFA No.25/2021, MFA No.26/2021,
MFA No.28/2021, MFA No.29/2021, MFA No.30/2021, MFA No.31/2021, MFA
No.32/2021, MFA No.33/2021, MFA No.34/2021, MFA No.35/2021, MFA No.36/2021,
MFA No.37/2021, MFA No.38/2021, MFA No.39/2021, MFA No.40/2021, MFA
No.41/2021, MFA No.42/2021, MFA No.43/2021, MFA No.44/2021, MFA No.45/2021,
MFA No.46/2021, MFA No.47/2021, MFA No.48/2021, MFA No.49/2021, MFA
No.50/2021, MFA No.51/2021, MFA No.52/2021, MFA No.53/2021, MFA No.56/2021,
MFA No.57/2021, MFA No.58/2021, MFA No.60/2021, MFA No.61/2021, MFA
No.62/2021, MFA No.64/2021, MFA No.65/2021, MFA No.66/2021, MFA No.67/2021,
Page No.# 4/5
MFA No.68/2021, MFA No.69/2021, MFA No.70/2021, MFA No.71/2021, MFA
No.73/2021, MFA No.78/2021, MFA No.79/2021, MFA No.81/2021, MFA No.82/2021,
MFA No.94/2021, MFA No.103/2021, MFA No.111/2021, MFA No.135/2021, MFA
No.140/2021, MFA No.156/2021, MFA No.160/2021, MFA No.167/2021 and MFA
No.176/2021 were all taken up together wherein they are predominantly of the similar
fact and the appeal raised are a common question as to whether the Railway Claims
Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claims applications being barred by limitation.
7] The Coordinate bench of this court, after a detailed discussion of the Railways
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 held that the basic reason behind the enactment of the Act
of 1987 was for the benefit of the claimants so that an expeditious payment of
compensation or settlement of the disputes can be done through a specialized Tribunal
and to reduce the burden on the various Civil Courts in the country and that the Act
was a beneficial as well as a welfare Act. The court held that delay in filing the claim
applications before the Tribunal was predominantly on the account of the
appellants/applicants was awaiting for the outcome of a judgment of the Gauhati High
Court on the issue of refund of terminal charges which is the central issue of the claim
application for which the Misc. Application has been preferred and subsequently the
matter is now under challenged by the Railway before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
second reasons is owing to the illness of appellant/applicant counsel's father for which
the counsel was not able to file the claim application within the prescribed limitation
period. The court on discussion of the reasons for delay given by the
Page No.# 5/5
appellants/applicants held that the MFA No.100/2011 pending in the Gauhati High
Court was disposed on 25.06.2015 and WP(C ) No.5029/2009 were disposed by the
Supreme Court on 19.06.2016 for non prosecution thus the plea taken on account of
these two cases were not sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. The court
further noted that no documents were produced to substantiate the claim that the
father of their counsel was ill. This Court thus while condoning the delay in respect of
those claim applications which are within 3 (three) months from the last date of filing
imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/- however, in respect of other applications filed beyond
3 (three) months from the last date of filing of the claim applications, the Court
dismissed the appeals by upholding the impugned judgment of the claim tribunal, as
being barred by limitation.
8] In the instant case, wherein the facts and circumstances of the case is similar to
those discussed above and it is seen that the application for condonation of delay is
for 17 months and 10 days to 06 months and 18 days. Thus, in view of the
observations made by the coordinate bench in case No. MFA. No. 54/2021 dated
21/07/2022, this court finds it fit to hold that this is a covered case and dismissed the
MFA No.97 of 2021 accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
