MFA 122/2004. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberMFA 122/2004
Judgement DateApril 25, 2018
CourtGauhati High Court

THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT

( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

MFA 122 of 2004

M/ S. MAHESWARI ENTERPRI SES & CO. …..Petitioner

-Versus-UNI ON OF I NDI A …..Respondent

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA

Advocates for the Petitioner : Mr. O.P. Bhati, Mr. A. Biswas,

: Mr. R. Kalita, Mr. K.P. Maheswari,

: Ms. S. Sarma.

Advocates for the Respondents : Mrs. B. Devi.

Date of hearing and order : 25.04.2017.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( ORAL)

  1. Heard Ms. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

  2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is that whether the judgment dated 06.09.2004 passed by the learned (T) Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench at Guwahati in application No. 229/ 1999 is sustainable on the ground of failure on part of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal to follow the mandatory procedure of Rule 21 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.

  3. I t appears from the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by this Court that the initial plea taken by the appellant before ths Court was that the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in 2000 (3) GLT 66 is not applicable. This Court has recorded in the said order dated 13.10.2004 that no force was found in the aforesaid plea. However, on the submission made by the learned

    MFA 122/ 2004 Page 1 of

    counsel for the appellant that a similar matter, being MFA 118/ 2004 was admitted for hearing, this present appeal was directed to be tagged along with MFA 118/ 2004. I ncidentally, the said MFA No. 118/ 2004 was withdrawn today, owing to which the said appeal was dismissed on withdrawal.

  4. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment dated

    21.04.2016 passed by this Court in MFA 41/ 2009, wherein this Court had opined that the judgment impugned therein was wholly cryptic in nature as it did not discuss the pros and cons of the case, for which without commenting on the merit of the case, the matter was remanded to the learned Tribunal for passing necessary judgment/ orders by framing issues for adjudication and to allow the parties to adduce evidence and to exhibit necessary documents.

  5. The learned counsel for the appellant had referred to the letter dated

    29.10.1999, by which the cheque for Rs.6,042/ - was forwarded to the appellant and she submits that the said letter was unsigned, for which the said...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT