Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/13 vs M/S Numaligarh Refinery Ltd on 19 September, 2025

                                                                     Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010273192018




                                                                2025:GAU-AS:12976

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

                              Case No. : MFA/12/2019

          UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIER
          RAILWAY, GUWAHATI, MALIGAON, PIN 781011, ASSAM.



          VERSUS

          M/S NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD
          122 A, G.S. ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI, PIN 781005, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B SARMAH, MRS. UMA CHAKRABORTY,MS. K
KALITA,MS. M CHATTERJEE

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K P MAHESWARI, MS. L DAS,MS. M SHARMA



           Linked Case : MFA/160/2019

          M/S NUMALIGARH REFINARY LIMITED
          REGISTERED OFFICE AT 122A
          G.S. ROAD
          CHRISTIAN BASTI
          GUWAHATI- 781005 AND MARKETING AND BD OFFICE AT NEDFI HOUSE
          4TH FLOOR
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI- 781005
          ASSAM.


           VERSUS
                                                                                  Page No.# 2/13


          UNION OF INDIA
          REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
          N.F. RAILWAY
          MALIGAON
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM- 781011.


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

Advocate for the appellant/respondent : Mrs. U. Chakraborty, ld. Spl.

Railway counsel assisted by Ms. M. Chatterjee, ld. Adv.

Advocate for the respondent/appellant : Ms. M. Sharma, ld. Adv.





                                 BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

                               Date of hearing    : 28.08.2025
                                Date of Judgment : 19.09.2025

                              JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned Special Railway counsel assisted by Ms. M. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent. Also heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/appellant.

2. These two appeals, MFA Case No. 12/2019, filed by the Union of India (Railways) against M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., and MFA Case No. 160/2019, filed by M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. against the Union of India (Railways), are filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Both arise from the common judgment and order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Claim Application No. OA-III-

Page No.# 3/13

27/2016, as well as the subsequent order dated 25.03.2019 passed in Review Application No. 51/2018, arising out of Original Application No. III-27/2016 respectively.

3. At the outset, it is noted that the essential facts in both appeals are not in dispute.

4. The facts leading to the filing of both appeals, in brief, are as follows:

4.1. Between 08.04.2007 and 28.03.2008, M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as "NRL") booked consignments of petroleum products from Numaligarh Refinery Siding (NMGS) to Banthara (BTRA) under 182 Railway Receipts (RRs). Initially, by letter dated 05.09.2006, the Chief Commercial Manager, NF Railway, indicated the chargeable distance between NMGS and BTRA as 1953 KM. Accordingly, the freight as charged were paid. Subsequently, through communications dated 01.12.2008 and 16.12.2008 issued by the Railways, the distance was corrected to 1854 KM, thereby revealing an excess distance charge of 99 KM per consignment on NRL.

4.2. Based on this correction issued by Railways, NRL raised a claim for a refund of excess freight paid by them, amounting to Rs. 55,88,240/- (Rupees fifty-five lakhs eighty-eight thousand two hundred forty only). The claim was supported by a certificate/statement issued by the then Chief Goods Superintendent (CGS), NMGS, detailing the refund payable for FY 2007-08 on account of the excess freight paid due to the erroneous chargeable distance. The authenticity of this claim was further substantiated by information furnished by the railway's authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. And the claim letter before the Railways authority was submitted within the prescribed period of limitation on 05.12.2008.

Page No.# 4/13

4.3. Thereafter, the NRL filed OA No. III-27/2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, seeking a refund of the principal amount of Rs. 55,88,240/- along with interest thereon. There was a delay of 6 years and 5 months in filing the claim application before the Railways Claim Tribunal. The NRL on 09.08.2016 filed a petition for condonation of delay. The learned Tribunal, by order dated 21.10.2016, condoned the delay, and this order was never challenged by the Railways. The Railways contested and file written statement in the Original Application being OA-III 27/2016, opposing the claim of NRL. The Railways denied contention and averment made in the claim petition of NRL.

4.4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues:

i. Whether the appellant served the statutory notice within time to the respondent?

ii. Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of freight overcharged by the respondent?

iii. Relief and costs?

4.5. Upon conclusion of trial, by common judgment and order dated 13.09.2018, the learned Tribunal decided issues (i) and (ii) in favour of NRL in OA-III 27/2016, holding that the NRL is entitled to a refund of Rs.55,88,240/-

with interest at 9% per annum from the date of judgment until payment. Additionally, costs of Rs.25,000/- were awarded.

Contention of the appellant in MFA No.12/2009:

5. Aggrieved by judgment in the main Claim Application OA-III-27/2016, the Railways/appellant filed MFA No. 12/2019, contending, inter alia, on the Page No.# 5/13

following grounds:

(i) That the appellant by filing evidence on affidavit had proved that the railway Authority has not prepared the alleged computer printed certificate /statement, as claimed by the respondent in as much as that the computer system was not in place during the relevant period of 2008.

(ii) that the NRL relied on Railway's letter dated 01.12.2008. However, the distance reflected in the letter dated 01.12.2008 was the distance prevailing at the relevant time and it had nothing to do with the distance prevailing in the year 2006.

(iii) that the respondent relied on railways letter dated 16.12.2008 by which the railway had rectified the distance of 4 stations from NMGS to Hisar, Bijwasan, Katarsinghwala and Bathinda, respectively. By this letter, the railway had corrected the clerical mistake appeared in the railway's letter dated 01.12.2008. However, the distance from NMGS to Banthara remains the same i.e. 1854 kms.

(iv) that the Railway had never admitted anything about the collection of freight on incorrect distance, and that the applicant/respondent has also failed to bring on record any materials to show that the distance for which the railway had collected, the freights was incorrect and as such, the question of alleged refund does not arise at all.

(v) that the Railways denied the certificate/statements alleged to have been prepared by the then CGS/NMGS, by filing evidence on affidavit and also denied under the provision of rule 15 B of the RCT procedure rule 1987, and asked the respondent to prove the said fact, and as such the respondent was duty-bound to bring on record at least some material, but the respondent failed to discharge Page No.# 6/13

the said burden and hence, the claim is not maintainable in law.

(vi) that the railway's letter dated 01.12.2008, the distance of station was informed to the respondent which were prevailing at the said period of time, by its letter the Railway had never rectified/correct any distance quoted by letter dated 05.09.2006. The distance which was reflected in the railway's letter dated 05.09.2006, were correct and prevailing at that period of time, except the distance to Ranchi, which was subsequently corrected and the applicant had also not raised any objection to such correction. Similarly, by Railway's letter dated 16.12.2008, the clerical mistake appeared in Railway's letter dated 01.12.2008 were rectified and nothing has been mentioned in respect of the distance reflected in the railway's letter dated 05.09.2006. Hence, the observation of the tribunal that the railway had rectified the distance reflected in their letter dated 05.09.2006 is not correct. Hence, the claim for refund was baseless.

(vii) that while deciding the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay, the only substantial issue before the court was "whether there was sufficient explanation of the delay,?" it is the settled law that the assignment of the new number to the original application would come only after the delay is being condoned and the issue relating to validity and sufficiency of notice under section 106 would come only after the original application that is "OA" comes into existence. So, the provisions of Section 11 of the CPC that is Res-judicata has no application in effect and circumstances of the case.

(viii) that there would not be any scope for the learned tribunal to exercise power under contempt of courts act, despite, the tribunal had directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as additional cost, which is contrary to jurisdiction/rules of the claims tribunal and having not considered the said Page No.# 7/13

aspect of law, has caused miscarriage of justice and as such, the impugned judgement is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside and quashed.

Submission of the Respondent:

6. The learned counsel for the respondent NRL on the other hand while supporting the judgment of the Tribunal has reiterated the contention made before the tribunal and submitted that the issue regarding the service of notice under section 106 of the Railways Act 1989 has already been decided in delay condonation application by a common judgement and order dated 21.10.2016 passed in MA.No 10/2016, which is not under challenged.

7. She further submitted that on 01.05.2015, the learned Railway's counsel fairly submitted before this Court that there was an admission of the wrong calculation of the distance, for which the railway has admitted the liability of Rs 55,88,240/-, this indicates that the liability amount has been admitted.

8. The learned counsel for the NRL submitted that in the RTI reply dated 14.06.2017 issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager cum- Divisional Public Information Officer, Tinsukia two material admissions were made, they are: (i) that the documents referred to by the respondent NRL and certified in the certificate/statement dated 06.12.2008 by the CGS/NMGS, were already on record, and hence, no question arose of supplying them again under the RTI;

(ii) that the respondent NRL was advised to physically verify the said documents against the original referable at the office of CGS /NMGS subject to prior intimation. This RTI reply dated 14.06.2017, clearly indicates that the original certificate/statement dated 06.12.2008 is referable at the office of the CGS/NMGS, and appropriate advice for physical verification was provided to the respondent NRL. Consequently, the railway declined to furnish duplicate copies Page No.# 8/13

of the document. In light of the above admission, it is evident that the CGS/NMGS certificate/statement dated 06.12.2008 is genuine, valid and duly supported by the official records maintained in the office of CGS/NMGS.

9. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the NRL submitted that the NRL filed an application before the learned tribunal for production and discovery of certain documents under section 18(3)(b) of the Railway claims tribunal act 1987, read with Rule 20(b) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, vide application dated 10.02.2017, which was allowed by the learned Railway Tribunal. However, despite of tribunal's direction, the railway failed to produce any of the documents. On the contrary, the Railway file objection. This also indicates that the Railways does not have any document to justify their case.

10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the NRL that the CGS/NMGS, Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh filed his evidence by way of affidavit dated 17.01.2018. However, the contents of his affidavit are contrary to the information received by the respondent NRL under the RTI reply dated 14.6.2017. Further, in response to the deposition and affidavit of the CGS/NMGS dated 17.01.2018, the respondent NRL filed a counter affidavit on 25.01.2018. This was accompanied by the sample computerized Railway Receipt (RRs) by them to refute the contention made by Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh that the computer system was not in place during the relevant period of 2008.

11. It is also submitted that the learned Railway tribunal instead of granting interest at 12% from 28.3.2008 awarded only 6% per annum from the date of filing of the original application that is 09.08.2016. The respondent NRL filed review petition number 51/2018, before the learned Tribunal seeking grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the last payment that is 28.3.2008 as originally claimed in the application. However, the learned Tribunal Page No.# 9/13

by order 25.03.2019 dismissed the review petition, observing that the tribunal has considered all aspect on record and awarded interest was granted as deemed fit.

12. The NRL filed Review Application No.51/2018 against the common judgment passed in respect of Claim Application OA-III-27/2016, seeking enhancement of the interest from @ 9% to 12 %. per annum by relying upon :

(i) Judgment dated 18.09.1987 passed in F.A. No.1/1987 ( Union of India Vs. Food Corporation of India); and (ii) Judgment dated 29.06.2012 passed in MFA No.80/2002 (M/s Jaypee Rewa Cement vs. Union of India ). However, vide order dated 25.03.2019, NRL's review petition was dismissed.

Contention Of the Cross Appellant in MFA No.160/2029:

13. Being aggrieved, the respondent NRL also file cross appeal before this Court registered as MFA No. 160/2019 against the common judgement dated 13.09.2018, review order dated 25.03.2019 passed in review application number 51/2018, seeking an amount of Rs. 53,64,710/-towards interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of last payment that is 28.03.2008 as claimed in the original application. The claim of interest is made in light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Union of India v. Food Corporation of India (FA No. 1/1987, decided on 18.09.1987) and M/S Jaypee Rewa Cement v. Union of India (MFA No. 80/2002, decided on 29.06.2012).

14. In view of the above the counsel for the NRL/respondent prayer for dismissal of the appeal. She further prays that the cross appeal bearing number 160/2019 filed by the respondent NRL be accepted and award interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of last payment that is 28.03.2008 in light of the judgement mentioned above.

Page No.# 10/13

15. Heard the rivel submission advanced by both sides and considered the documents on record.

16. The contention of the Railways in MFA No.12/2019 are: that the Railways never issued any certificate or statement, yet the learned Tribunal wrongly treated the same as genuine; that the correction of distance made in 2008 could not retrospectively alter the chargeable distance applicable during 2006-2008; that the claim was time-barred, and the learned Tribunal erred in condoning the delay; and that the Railways/appellant never admitted any liability, and the Tribunal erred in holding otherwise.

17. The Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., on the other hand, while reiterating their stands before the Tribunal has filed Cross Appeal MFA No. 160/2019 seeking enhancement of interest to 12% per annum from 28.03.2008 (the last date of payment), relying on the judgments in Union of India v. Food Corporation of India (FA No. 1/1987, decided on 18.09.1987) and M/S Jaypee Rewa Cement v. Union of India (MFA No. 80/2002, decided on 29.06.2012).

18. From the rival submissions, the following issues emerges for determination:

a. Whether the learned Tribunal rightly held that Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. was entitled to a refund of excess freight amounting to Rs.55,88,240/-?

      b.    Whether the claim was barred by limitation?

      c.    Whether the learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest at only 9%

per annum from the date of judgment instead of 12% per annum from 28.03.2008?

Findings:

Page No.# 11/13

19. On the issue regarding entitlement to refund, the record clearly establishes, through Railway's letters dated 01.12.2008 and 16.12.2008, that the distance between Numaligarh Refinery Siding (NMGS) to Banthara (BTRA) was corrected from 1953 KM to 1854 KM. The excess charge of 99 KM is not seriously disputed by the Railways. In fact, during the proceedings on 01.05.2025, the learned Senior Special Railway Counsel, fairly submitted that there was an admission of incorrect distance calculation and that the Railway had admitted the liability of Rs.55,88,240/-. She further submitted that the appeal challenged the entire judgment, therefore, time was sought to obtain necessary instructions from the Railway authorities.

20. The contention that the certificate/statement issued by the Chief Goods Superintendent was fabricated is without merit. The RTI reply dated 14.06.2017 issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager-cum-Divisional Public Information Officer, Tinsukia, specifically acknowledged the availability of the original record in the CGS/NMGS office. Thus, the genuineness of the supporting documents stands corroborated. Accordingly, the Tribunal was right in holding that Numaligarh Refinery Ltd is entitled to a refund of Rs.55,88,240/-.

21. Regarding limitation, the delay of 6 years and 5 months was condoned by the learned Tribunal by a reasoned order dated 21.10.2016 in MA No. 10/2016. As this order was never challenged by the Railways, they are estopped from re- agitating the issue of limitation in the present appeal. Hence, no further discussion in this regard is called for.

22. Regarding interest, it appears that the original application filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay the claimed amount along with simple interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till the date of judgment. It was further Page No.# 12/13

ordered that if the respondent failed to make payment within 90 days of the judgment, the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till realization.

23. Aggrieved, the cross appellant preferred a review petition before the Tribunal contending that interest should be awarded from the date of last payment of freight i.e., 28.03.2008 at the rate of 12% per annum by relying upon two judgment: (i) Judgment dated 18.09.1987 passed in F.A. No. 1/1987 (Union of India vs. Food Corporation of India ); and (ii) Judgment dated 29.06.2012 passed in MFA No. 80/2002 (M/s Jaypee Rewa Cement vs. Union of India). The Tribunal, however, rejected the review petition holding that: (a) there was no provision in the Railway Act, 1989 or Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for payment of interest; (b) interest was awarded only in exercise of inherent powers under Order 44 of the RCT Rules; and (c) no error apparent on the face of record existed to justify a review under Section 152 CPC.

24. Learned counsel for the cross appellant has reiterated her earlier submissions before this Court, seeking enhancement of interest from 9% to 12% per annum, and also for grant of interest from the date of last payment of freight i.e., 28.03.2008.

25. Having considered the submissions and the materials on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 25.03.2019 passed in Review Application No. 51/2018, arising out of Original Application No. III-27/2016 in respect of the cross appellant. The judgments relied upon by the appellant arose out of different factual contexts and do not govern the present case. The Tribunal, in exercise of its discretion, has already granted interest in the absence of specific statutory provision, which cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Further, once the Tribunal has consciously exercised its discretion while granting interest, the Page No.# 13/13

same cannot be re-agitated under the garb of review or in appeal unless perversity or patent illegality is shown.

26. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no error apparent on the face of record. The interest granted @6% per annum till judgment and thereafter @9% per annum on default of payment beyond 90 days cannot be said to be inadequate or contrary to law.

27. Consequently, the cross appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

Conclusion:

28. For the reasons stated above: