Railway tribunal not granted interest from the date of petition on the awarded compensation - Claimant is entitled for interest on the award from the date of presentation of petition= ARUNA SINHA AND 2 OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY GM, SC RLY, SECUNDERABAD. - http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.=CMA&mno=686&year=2013

Railway tribunal not granted interest from the date of petition on the awarded compensation - Claimant is entitled for interest on the award from the date of presentation of petition=
In the unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3658 of 2009(arising out of SLP(Civil) No.26654 of 2008 dt.14.05.2009), 
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the amount awarded as compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Act shall carry interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition at 6% per annum and from the date of award, till the date of realisation at 9% per annum.
CMA 686 / 2013

CMASR 26206 / 2008
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
ARUNA SINHA AND 2 OTHERS  VSUNION OF INDIA, REP.BY GM, SC RLY, SECUNDERABAD.
PET.ADV. : KRISHNA PRASADRESP.ADV. : CHOWDARY
SUBJECT: RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNALDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.686 of 2013

Date: 02.09.2013
Between:
Aruna Sinha
and two others.                                                       … Appellants
AND
Union of India
Rep. by the General Manager,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad.                … Respondent

Counsel for Appellants           : Sri T. L. Krishna Prasad
Counsel for Respondent                   : Sri  B.H.R. Chowdary

The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:

          This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987(for short “the Act”). The only ground on which this appeal is filed is that the Tribunal whose order is impugned herein has not granted interest to the appellants from the date of filing of the claim petition before it and has only granted interest if the respondent did not deposit the compensation awarded within 60 days in the State Bank of Hyderabad, South Lallaguda Branch, Secunderabad.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for appellants and the learned counsel for respondent.

3.       The learned counsel for appellant has placed before me the judgment dt.15.10.2009 in C.M.A.No.1030 of 2009 wherein this Court followed the unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3658 of 2009(arising out of SLP(Civil) No.26654 of 2008 dt.14.05.2009), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the amount awarded as compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Act shall carry interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition at 6% per annum and from the date of award, till the date of realisation at 9% per annum.

4.       The learned counsel for respondent also admitted that this is the legal position flowing from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to Supra.

5.       Following the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court’s decision dt.15.10.2009 in C.M.A.No.1030 of 2009, this appeal is allowed directing that the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal in favour of appellants shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of registration of the claim petition till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the date of realisation.

6.       Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with the above direction. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. No costs.

___________________________

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

Date: 02.09.2013

scs

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.