Dismissed

General Manager Southern Railways, v. Chandran

Kerala HC15 Sept 2021MFA (ECC)/99/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that the appellant cannot escape liability to pay interest for a ten-year period incurred during prosecution of the matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal due to bona fide mistake. Such prosecution is a valid ground to condone delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

Interest liability for the ten-year period during CAT prosecution is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

General Manager Southern Railways, Vs Chandran — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 24TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

MFA NO. 99 OF 2019 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 IN ECC No.366/2014 OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶8

GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, MADRAS CENTRAL, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONEL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

BY ADV SRI.B.RAJESH, SC, RAILWAYS

¶10

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶11

CHANDRAN, AGED 67 YEARS,

¶12

S/O NARAYANAN, BINDHU NIVAS, PATTATHANAM, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM-691 010.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.M.ALFRED LIONEL WINSTON

¶14

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

MFA (ECC) No.99 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

When the matter came up for hearing, the question of

¶19

interest awarded alone was taken up on the ground that since the petitioner was prosecuting the matter before the CAT for a long period of ten years, they are not bound to pay interest for the said period.

¶20

Initially, the petitioner prosecuted the issue in O.A

¶21

before the Central Administrative Tribunal under a bonafide mistake. There is a clear gap of ten years in approaching the Employees Compensation Commissioner. The matter would squarely come under the purview of Section 14 of the

¶22

Limitation Act. The appellant/Railway cannot wriggle out of the liability to pay interest for the said period, since they were holding the amount of compensation lawfully entitled for the said period. Hence, whether the quantum was ascertained or adjudicated on a subsequent date will not make any difference in the liability to pay interest. The prosecution initiated under a bonafide mistake before an incompetent authority would be a valid ground to obtain

¶23

MFA (ECC) No.99 of 2019 3

¶24

the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act so as to condone the delay occasioned in prosecuting the matter before such authority. At the time when the delay was condoned, the said question was not taken up and no reservation was made to exclude the interest for the said period. As such, the appeal fails, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

General Manager Southern Railways, v. Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager Southern Railways, v. Chandran

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

Bhagavathi Parambath Pushparajan Vs K.T.Rema

Liju @ Niju Vs Rmadevi

Ramakrishnan Vs Manikandan

V.O.Jacob Vs Jose

Thomas Vs Amal

Ammini Kuruvila, Vs Kunjumol Charly