Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs The Union Of India And Anr on 10 February, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                        Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010089762021




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:1394

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

                                  Case No. : MFA/130/2021

            M/S MEGHA TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.
            MAYUR GARDEN, 2ND FLOOR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM



            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
             EASTERN RAILWAY
             17-NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
             KOLKATA- 700001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K P MAHESWARI, MS. M SHARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY, MR. B K DAS (R-1)




             Linked Case : MFA/133/2021

            M/S MEGHA TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.
            MAYUR GARDEN
            2ND FLOOR
            G.S. ROAD
            GUWAHATI- 781005
            ASSAM
                                                     Page No.# 2/9


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
 EASTERN RAILWAY
 17-NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
 KOLKATA- 700001.
 ------------

Advocate for : MR. K P MAHESWARI Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Linked Case : MFA/141/2021

M/S MEGHA TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. MAYUR GARDEN 2ND FLOOR G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005 ASSAM

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 EASTERN RAILWAY 17-NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD KOLKATA- 700001.

------------

Advocate for : MR. K P MAHESWARI Page No.# 3/9

Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.





                Advocates for the appellant(s)     :     Ms. M Sharma

                Advocates for the respondents      :     Mr. BK Das
                                                   Standing Counsel, NF Rly


                Date of hearing & judgment         :    10.02.2025


                                       BEFORE
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH



                        JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Ms. M Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. BK Das, the learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. All the three appeals are taken up together by this common order in view of the fact that similar matters have already been dealt with by this Court in the case of Assam Roofing Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another , reported in (2023) 2 GAU LR 313. This Court in the said judgment held that the claim applications which were filed beyond the period of 3(three) months from the last date of filing of the claim application were barred by Limitation and the judgment of the Railway Claims' Tribunal therein were not interfered with. However, in respect of those claim applications which were filed within a period Page No.# 4/9

of 3(three) months from the last date of filing, the said appeals were allowed subject to imposition of costs of Rs.10,000/-. Paragraphs 36 to 39 of the judgment in Assam Roofing Ltd. (supra) being relevant are reproduced herein below:

"36. From the above contentions, it would be clear that the fault in not filing the claim application on time was due to the fault of the counsel. However, the applicants/appellants herein cannot be oblivious to the statutory mandate of filing the claim applications within time and their responsibility do not come to an end merely by handing over the papers to their legal counsel. The litigant has to also see to that his/her/their counsel/legal practitioner had duly filed the claim applications within time, more so, taking into consideration that the appellants before this Court, who were the applicants before the Tribunal, were regularly in the business of transporting goods through the Railways. Inaction on the part of the appellants tantamounts to sleeping over their rights and the aspect of gross negligence creeps into the fold. It may have been that the applicants/appellants were under an impression that their counsel had filed his/her/their application within time or the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant kept the appellants/applicants at dark that the applications were not filed within time. There is no material brought on record to that effect except the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The concept of reasonableness therefore has to be embedded in order to ascertain the question of due diligence which in effect would also show as to whether the applicants/appellants were negligent in pursuing with their claim applications.

37. Upon applying the concept of due diligence, this Court is of the Page No.# 5/9

opinion that a period of 3 (three) months from the last date of filing the claim applications can be taken as a reasonable period within which the appellants/applicants ought to have exercised the due diligence by making enquiries with his/her/their counsel and found out as to whether the applications were duly filed or not. This is more so when there are no materials brought on record to show that the applicants/appellants were under impression that the claim applications were filed on time after taking into consideration the proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1987. Any period beyond 3 (three) months from the last date of filing, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be constituted to be reasonable for condoning the delay inasmuch as, in the opinion of this Court, the same would negate the provisions of Section 17 (2) of the Act of 1987 and tantamount to legislation by this Court.

38. This Court is also of the opinion that in respect to those appeals/applications where delay was less than 3 (three) months which this Court considers to be reasonable to condone, there has to be an imposition of cost.

39. A perusal of the records would show that in some of the applications there is a single claim and in some other applications there are various claims which have been clubbed together. This Court is of the opinion that while condoning the delay in respect to those claim applications which are within 3 (three) months from the last date of filing, an imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) would be appropriate against each claim made in the claim applications. In respect to other applications filed beyond 3 (three) months from the last date of filing of the claim applications, this Court dismisses the appeals by upholding the Page No.# 6/9

impugned judgment as being barred by limitation. It is also observed that in those appeals, arising out of claim applications, filed within 3 (three) months from the last date for filing of the claim applications which has been allowed herein, the appellants/applicants shall not be entitled to claim any interest on their claims.

3. In the backdrop of the above, this Court, therefore, would take each of the appeals on its individual facts.

4. MFA No.54/2021 arises out of a claim proceedings registered as MA- 13/2013. The said claim proceedings were filed on 15.07.2013.

Sl. Inv.No. R.R. No. Dated Period of Delay

1. 01. 195370 05-04-2010 3 months 11 days

2. 02 195371 14-04-2010 3 months 2 days

5. In view of the observations made in the case of Assam Roofing Ltd (supra), MFA No.54/2021 is dismissed as the claims at Sl.No.1 and 2 are barred by limitation.

6. The instant appeal arises out of a claim proceedings registered as MA- 27/2015. The said claim proceedings was filed on 16.02.2015. Out of those claims, four were filed within time. However, there were two claims which were Page No.# 7/9

delayed. The details of the above is given in the chart as below:

      Inv.No. R.R. No.                 Dated          Period of Delay


Sl.

1. 02.        212000494        13-10-2011             04 month and 03 days

2. 05         212000586        08-01-2012             01 month and 08 days

3. 11         212000734        07-05-2012             Within time

4. 28         212000761        09-06-2012             Within time

5. 37         212000779        27-06-2012             Within time

6. 03         212000012        07-07-2012             Within time

7. In view of the observations so made in the case of Assam Roofing Ltd., (supra) the MFA No.141/2021 is partly allowed in the following manner:

(i). The claim at Sl.1 is dismissed as being barred by limitation.

(ii). The delay in respect to claim No.2 is condoned subject to imposition of costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited within 30(thirty) days from the date of the instant order and the Railway administration shall be at liberty to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application by at Sl.No.2.

(iii). There is no delay in filing of the claims at Sl. Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6.

(iv). This Court further observes that the appellant herein shall not be Page No.# 8/9

entitled to claim interest in respect to claim at Sl.No.2.

(v). The Railway Claims Tribunal shall adjudicate the said Claim Applications in accordance with law and taking into account the above observations.

8. The instant appeal arises out of a claim proceedings registered as MA

-41/2015. From a perusal of the records of the claim proceedings in MA- 41/2015, it transpires that the said claim proceedings relates to a single claim as reproduced below: