The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing a claim petition for delay. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order given the pendency of the matter for adjudication.
The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO No. 1205 of 1992 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 1205 of 1992 (O&M)
M/s Bansal and Company
.. Appellant
vs
Union of India
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Praveen Bhadu, Advocate for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 15.5.1992, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on account of delay.
Claim of the appellant in the present appeal is for refund of 20,209/- which was deposited in excess. Considering the fact that amount involved in the present case is merely 20,209/-, I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage. Even if the delay is condoned, the matter will have to go back for adjudication.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
7.2.2011 vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against dismissal of claim petition for delay should be allowed.
M/s Bansal and Company
Union of India
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
