B.P. SINGH, J. - These two appeals by special leave have been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of the Guwahati High Court in MA (F) No. 180 of 1996 dated 19 -5 -2000 and the order passed in Review Petition No. 85 of 2000 dated 28 -7 -2000. The High Court by its judgment and order impugned dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench dated 30 -8 -1996 in Application No. 915 of 1993. The review petition preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court was also rejected by order dated 28 -7 -2000.

2. The factual background in which the dispute arose is as follows:

Two consignments of iodised salt were booked in favour of the appellant. The first consignment consisted of 767 bags and the second 744 bags. These consignments were not delivered. The appellant, therefore, lodged two claims dated 26 -4 -1991 claiming the value of the said goods, namely, Rs. 53,264 and Rs. 51,686 in respect of the two consignments. By letters dated 7 -4 -1993 (dispatched in August, 1993) the Railways admitted the claims only to an extent of Rs. 9111 and Rs. 9032 and enclosed two cheques in favour of the appellant for the sum of Rs. 9111 and Rs. 9032 in respect of the two claims. Both the cheques were dated 27 -7 -1993. The letters contained the following condition:

"In case the above offer is not acceptable to you, the cheque should be returned forthwith to this office; failing which it will be deemed that you have accepted the offer in full and final satisfaction of your claim.

The retention of this cheque and/or encashment thereof will automatically amount to acceptance in full and final satisfaction of your above claim without reason and you will be estopped from claiming any further relief on the subject."

3. On receipt of two letters along with the two cheques, the appellant wrote to the Railways two identical letters of 20 -8 -1993 stating that the claims were placed under PROTEST and could not be accepted and that the balance amount should be remitted within 15 days. We extract below one of the letters dated 208 -1993 :

"We regret to inform you that our above -noted claim has been settled for Rs. 9111 instead of Rs. 53,264, the claimed amount. The same is therefore placed under PROTEST and cannot be accepted. Please therefore remit the balance amount to us within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which, we shall be compelled to lodge a civil suit against the Railways for recovery of the balance amount. Please treat this as most urgent."

4. It is not in dispute that the cheques were encashed, though the exact date of encashment is not apparent from the record. It is also not disputed that the balance amount claimed by the appellant was not paid by the Railways. In these circumstances the appellant filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench for Rs. 21,151 and Rs. 20,258 (after adjusting the freight payable namely Rs. 23,022 and Rs. 22,396), in all Rs. 41,409 as balance compensation in regard to the two invoices.

5. Before the Railway Claims Tribunal the Railways pleaded full and final settlement since the cheques were not returned and were in fact encashed. The Tribunal took the view that there was no scope for the applicant to treat the amount as part payment by making a protest and if the applicant found the amount to be insufficient he should have returned the cheques because the offer made by the Railways was in very clear terms, namely - that the amount could be accepted only in full and final satisfaction of the claim or else the cheques had to be returned. In this view of the matter the claim application was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

6. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who referred the matter for consideration by a Division Bench,