Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs M/S Bajaj Steel on 18 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010033542016
2025:GAU-AS:15656
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/113/2016
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI-11
VERSUS
M/S BAJAJ STEEL
N.T. ROAD, P.O. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D K DEY,
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.M SHARMA, MR. DIVYANSH RATHI,MR.K P MAHESWARI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 18.11.2025
Heard Mr. D.K. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M.
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987,
the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.09.2016, passed
by the learned Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench at Guwahati
Page No.# 2/4
Bench, in Claim Application No. OA-I-48/2012.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated
02.09.2016, the learned Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench at
Guwahati Bench ('Tribunal', for short) had directed the respondent/appellant
herein to pay the applicant/respondent herein a sum of Rs. 26,28,441/-, along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of
payment, and in addition to the same, the respondent/appellant herein was also
directed to pay the proportionate application fee amount of Rs. 15,608/- and
legal practitioner's fee of Rs. 3,000/-.
4. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant has raised preliminary objection
in respect of sustainability of the impugned judgment and order dated
02.09.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the said
judgment and order was passed by a single Member of the Tribunal. By
referring to Section 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ('Act of 1987', for
short), Mr. Dey submits that sub-section (2) to Section 4 provides that a Bench
shall consist of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member, subject
however, to the other provisions of the Act; and since the impugned judgment
and order was passed by a Judicial Member only, without there being any
Technical Member, the same is not sustainable in law, and therefore, Mr. Dey
has contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order and to remand
the matter back to the learned Tribunal to adjudicate the matter afresh by
constituting a Bench comprising of one Judicial Member and one Technical
Member. In support of his submission, Mr. Dey has referred to a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita vs. Union of
India and Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 181, and also a decision of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 08.05.2025, in MFA No. 90/2013 (Union
Page No.# 3/4
of India vs. M/s Shree Mahalaxmi Mills).
5. Per contra, Ms. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, by referring
to sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act of 1987, submits that as per the said
provision, the Chairman or any other Member authorized by the Chairman in
this behalf to function as a Bench consisting of a single Member and exercise
the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal in respect of such
classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the
Chairman may, by general or special order, specify. And as such, she submits
that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order.
5.1. However, to a pointed query of this Court as to whether the Chairman,
while taking up the case, had passed any general or special order, Ms. Sharma
submits that no such general or special order was passed by the Chairman while
taking up the aforementioned case. Then, she submits that if the Court decides
to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal on this ground, then the
learned Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the matter in a time bound
manner, to which Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant has also not
opposed.
6. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the
parties, and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amulya Chandra
Kalita (supra) and the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated
08.05.2025, in MFA No. 90/2013, the impugned judgment and order dated
02.09.2016, stands set aside and quashed.
7. The matter stands remanded to the learned Tribunal with a direction to
constitute a Bench comprising of one Judicial Member and one Technical
Member and to dispose of the same after affording opportunity of being heard
Page No.# 4/4
to both the parties.
8. As the matter pertains to the year 2016, it is provided that the
aforementioned exercise has to be carried out within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. The Registry shall take immediate steps to send down the TCR forthwith,
along with a copy of this order.
10. In terms of above, this appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
