SRI BHARAT CH. DAS AND ANR Vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

GAHC010013122019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/241/2019 SRI BHARAT CH. DAS AND ANR S/O LATE DHANIRAM DEKA, BY PROFESSION CULTIVATOR, BY FAITH AND RELIGION HINDU, R/O VILL. BHUYAKHAT, P.O. BHUYAKHAT, P.S. KALAIGAON IN THE DIST. OF UDALGURI (BTAD), ASSAM, PIN 784509 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI 781011, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
2:THE DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PASCHIM BORAGAON GARCHUK GUWAHATI- 781035 ASSAM
3:THE INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AN AUTONOMOUS R AND D INSTITUTE OF DEPTT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GOVT OF INDIA VIGYAN PATH PASCHIM BORAGAON GARCHUK GHY- 35 ASSAM
4:THE REGISTRAR IASST PASCHIM BORAGAON GARCHUK GUWAHATI- 781035 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R Deka Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2784/2018 SMT KANIKA ROY AND ANR W/O LATE MANI ROY R/O VILL. DAKHIN BARUAPARA P.O. PAHARPUR P.S. KOTOWALI DIST. JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL)
2: SRI AMIT ROY S/O LATE MANI ROY R/O VILL. DAKHIN BARUAPARA P.O. PAHARPUR P.S. KOTOWALI DIST. JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL)
VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 ------------
Advocate for : MR D C K HAZARIKA Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1941/2017 SMT. SUFIYA KHATUN W/O LT. SURHAB ALI VILL. CHENGLIMARI P.S. BARPETA ROAD P.O. CHENGLIMARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781318 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA ------------
Advocate for : MR.J MOLLAH Advocate for : MR.A K SARKAR appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1796/2022 SRI BHARAT CH. DEKA AND ANR S/O LATE DHANIRAM DEKA R/O VILL. BHUYAKHAT P.O. BHUYAKHAT P.S. KALAIGAON DIST. - UDALGURI ASSAM PIN 784509
2: MRS CHAMPA DEKA W/O SRI BHARAT CH. DEKA R/O VILL. BHUYAKHAT P.O. BHUYAKHAT P.S. KALAIGAON DIST. - UDALGURI ASSAM PIN 784509 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011 ------------
Advocate for : MR. R Deka Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/859/2017 BIRESH DEY S/O LATE BINOD DEY R/O HAMRENG DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 ------------
Advocate for : MR.S ISLAM Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/4207/2017 SRI ATUL GOGOI S/O LATE GERELA GOGOI R/O AHOM GAON P.O. and P.S. SALIKIHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR.S S S RAHMAN Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case :
SRI BHARAT CH. DAS AND ANR VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA ------------
Advocate for :
Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case : MFA/114/2018 SRI PARAMANAND PASWAN AND ANR S/O LATE SUNIL PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILL MANULI PS NAWADA DIST NAWADA BIHAR
2: SMTI. SAKUNTI DEVI W/O LATE SUNIL PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILL MANULI PS NAWADA DIST NAWADA BIHAR VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER NR RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11 ------------
Advocate for : MR D C K HAZARIKA Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case : MFA/184/2017 SRI ATUL GOGOI S/O LATE GERELA GOGOI R/O AHOM GAON P.O. and P.S. SALIKIHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 ASSAM. ------------
Advocate for : MS. N AHMED Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2747/2018 SRI PARAMANAND PASWAN AND ANR S/O LATE SUNIL PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILL MANULI PS NAWADA DIST NAWADA BIHAR
2: SMTI. SAKUNTI DEVI W/O LATE SUNIL PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILL MANULI PS NAWADA DIST NAWADA BIHAR VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER NR RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11 ------------
Advocate for : MR D C K HAZARIKA Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA Linked Case : MFA/117/2018 SMT KANIKA ROY AND ANR W/O LATE MANI ROY R/O VILL. DAKHIN BARUAPARA P.O. PAHARPUR P.S. KOTOWALI DIST. JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL)
2: SRI AMIT ROY S/O LATE MANI ROY R/O VILL. DAKHIN BARUAPARA P.O. PAHARPUR P.S. KOTOWALI DIST. JALPAIGURI (WEST BENGAL)
VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 ------------
Advocate for : MR D C K HAZARIKA Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

ORDER

Date : 23-05-2022 This is a common order for this batch of applications.

2. Heard Ms. J. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NF Railway.

3. This batch of applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

4. The question in these applications is as to whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for extending the time limit as prescribed in Section 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act of 1987(for short “the Act of 1987).

5. Section 23(3) of the Act of 1987 prescribes that every appeal under the said Act shall be preferred within a period of 90 days from the date of the order appealed against.

6. In Union of India Vs. Jasiruddin Talukdar reported in 2011 (2) GLT 497, this Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for extending the period as prescribed by 23(3) of the Act of 1987. Thereafter in Union of India Vs. Sushil Kumar(M/S and Ors.) reported in 2017 (5) GLT 542, this Court has again reiterated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for extending the period as prescribed by Section 23(3) of the Act of 1987.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kapil and Ors Vs. Union of India and Others and the decision of the Supreme Court in Chinitals India Ltd Vs. Vhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.

8. In Kapil and Ors.(supra), it was held as under :-

“To summarize, it is stated that in the absence of any specific exclusion of the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, either in the form of a specific provision or by necessary intendment or inference in the Claims Tribunal Act which is not a complete code in itself, specifically in view of the fact that the provisions of sections 4 to 24 are not directly or indirectly in conflict with any provisions relating to filing of an appeal before the High Court contained in the Claims Tribunal Act nor do the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act render any provision relating to the filing of the appeal contained in the Claims Tribunal Act otiose or redundant, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the filing of an appeal under section 23 of the Claims Tribunal Act by virtue of the provisions of section 29(2) of the Act. “

9. The judgment in Chinitals India Ltd(supra) relates to an appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and therefore, this judgment is not applicable in this case.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

11. This Court finds that the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court failed to persuade this Court to follow its decision. The reason is that the decision of this Court in Jasiruddin Talukdar(supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in various judgments. Therefore, this Court decided to accept the ratio laid down in Jasiruddin Talukdar(supra), where it has been held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 cannot be invoked for extending the limitation period by virtue of the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Act of 1987.

12. Accordingly, the present batch of applications are found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document