Dismissed

Union of India v. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Gauhati HC2 Dec 2021MFA/79/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed appeals against orders of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati. The Tribunal had condoned filing delays under Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, since the applicant established sufficient cause. The high court found no merit in the appeals.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed holding that the Railway Claims Tribunal's decision to condone delay was lawful.

Union of India Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010233602015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : MFA/79/2015

¶5

UNION OF INDIA

¶6

REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ASSAM OIL DIVISION-2, DR. B.K. KAKOTI LANE, KACHARI BASTI, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-7

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MSB DEVI

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

02.12.2021

¶14

Heard Ms. U. Chakraborty, learned Senior Standing Counsel for NF Railways as well as Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶15

This is a common order for these appeals.

¶16

The Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati had condoned the delay in filing applications by exercising the power vested upon it by Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act of 1987. Section 17 reads as under:

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

“17. Limitation.—

¶19

(1) The Claims Tribunal shall not admit an application for any claim—

¶20

(a) under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 unless the application is made within three years from the date on which the goods in question were entrusted to the railway administration for carriage by railway;

¶21

(b) under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1)⁹ [or, as the case may be, sub-section (1A)] of section 13 unless the application is made within one year of occurrence of the accident;

¶22

(c) under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 unless the application is made within three years from the date on which the fare or freight is paid to the railway administration: Provided that no application for any claim referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall be preferred to the Claims Tribunal until the expiration of three months next after the date on which the intimation of the claim has been preferred under section 78B of the Railways Act.

¶23

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), an application may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) if the applicant satisfies the Claims Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”

¶24

Section 17 allows the Tribunal to condone the delay if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not making the application within the specified period. For condoning delay in filing an application before a Court or Tribunal, the Court or the Tribunal is the best authority for consideration of a prayer made to that effect. It is the subjective satisfaction of the Court or the Tribunal by which they are empowered to condone delay in filing applications. It is a settled position of law that while dealing with a prayer for condonation of delay, the Courts or the Tribunals should not have a technical effort. These Forums are established by law for dispensing justice to the litigants and the right to justice is a basic requirement of a civil society. People do not come to the Court or the Tribunal unnecessarily. There are some circumstances which compels them to come to these Forums. Therefore, the Forums exercising judicial or quashi judicial power are bound to hear the litigants and, thereafter, they are passed a decision.

¶25

In the impugned orders, this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal has elaborately discussed the issue on the basis of certain judgments of superior courts and, thereafter, passed the judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders do not require any interference of this Court.

¶26

The present appeals are found to be devoid of merit and stand dismissed.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Union of India v. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chandra Nath Kalita and Anr.

Gayananda Das Vs M/S Dataplus Info Channel and 2 Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Konmai Saikia and 3 Ors.

The Union of India Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Dr. Mahbub Alam Khan Vs Nazir Ahmed Barbhuiya and 6 Ors.

On the Death of Khumba Das, His Legal Heirs, Niva Das and 4 Ors. Vs Jalibar Das and Anr.