Case Argument
Date : 21/11/2017
Statement showing cases in which only Railways have filed Arguments

NOTE:-Merely posting of JIDRP website with case arguments does not mean that the case has been referred to JIDRP for conciliation. For referring a case to JIDRP for conciliation, the first and foremost condition to be observed, in accordance with Para 3.11 of JIDRP Scheme, is that for existing cases, the concerned PSUs and Railways will move a joint application before the relevant courts, inter-allia, praying for adjournment of the cases till such time the cases are heard and settled by JIDRP.

S No. Case No. Claims No. Claimant Name Amount Claimed Railway Court Code Claimant Argument Claimant Argument Date Railway Argument Railway Argument Date Joint
Application
moved
before
RCT/Court
Joint
Application
accepted
by RCT/Court
Note
filed
in JIDRP
Secretariat
Note
received
by JIDRP
Secretariat
 1  OA/175/1994  2020100532 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  247673  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 13-JUN-07 in favour of Party      S.E.RLY,S TRAFFIC,MISJOINDER OF PARTY.RELEVANT C.F.& PAPERS T/S TO S.E.RLY.NOT YET AWARDED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 2  OA/1277/1993  2020100533 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  510094  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 27-AUG-10 in favour of Party      TRAFFIC RELATES TO S.E.RLY.ACCORDINGLY W.S. FILED.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 3  OC/1977/1993  2020100534 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  203142  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 23-AUG-10 in favour of Party      THE CASE RELATES TO S.E.RLY.ACCORDINGLY THE CASE IS CONTESTED BY THEM FILING W.S.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 4  TA/9008/1990  2020200173 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  11803  ER  RCT/CCC      FIVE WGNS.WERE BOOKED FROM FARIDKOT TO MEMARI COVERING A DISTANCE OF 1795 KM. AS ALLEGED AND FREIGHT HAD BEEN COLLECTED AT DESTINATION FOR RS.20503/- TWO WGNS.DELIVERED AS ALLEGED&CALCULATED THE FREIGHT OF TWO WGNS. AS RS.8700/-&EXCESS FREIGHT CLAIMED RS.11803/-.THE CLAIMANT DID NOT CLAIM THE REST THREE WGNS.IT IS IMPLIED THAT EITHER THE REST CONSGNTS.HAD BEEN DELIVERED OR ADJUSTED,SO QUESTION OF EXCESS FREIGHT DOES NOT ARISE.  11/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 5  TA/6571/1991  2020200183 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  24500  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 07-MAR-02 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED SHORT DELIVERY OF M.S.ANGLES BOOKED EX.BHELAI TO K.P.DOCK IMPLEADING S.E.& E.RLY. AS RESPONDENT.TRAFFIC FALLS UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF S.E.RLY.IN TERMS OF CCO.E.RLY,S D.O.LETTER NO. NO.C/99/3/INDEX VOL III DT.15/4/97&CCO/S.E.RLY,S LETTER NO.CA2/27(CPT RLY)DT.20/5/97,ALL CLAIMS REGISTERED W.E.F.1/5/97 ONWARDS BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT BY E.RLY.AND PRIOR TO THAT DDATE WILL DEAL BY S.E.RLY.HENCE LIABILITY IN THIS CASE IS SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.FILED W.S.ACCORDINGLY.  12/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 6  OC/31/2002  2020200221 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  815930  ER  RCT/LKO      THE CASE WAS ADMITED BY THE LD.RCT FOR THE RESPONDENT RLY. FOR NON-DELIVERY OF TANK WAGN NO.ER17020 AS PER ORDER-SHEET DT.21-12-06.THE CASE IS STILL PENDING.THE CASE APPEARS TO BE WEAK ON MERIT.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 7  OC/23/2000  2020200231 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  22965  ER  RCT/LKO      FILE7AFFIDAVIT TAKING PLEA THAT THE CONS.IN QUESTION WAS LOADED WITHOUT RLY.AS PER R.R.WAGN ARRIVED THE DEST.WITHIN NORMAL TIME HAVING WITH BOTH SEAL,BUT R.A.OPINED THE CASE IS WEAK ON CONTEST AS BODY BARREL BROKEN...  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 8  OC/22/2000  2020200233 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  219346  ER  RCT/LKO      THE TANK WAGN WAS CONSUMED BY DF/PATRATU INSTEAD OF BOOKED FROM BGB TO MGS.THE SUIT WAS FILED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 9  OC/24/2002  2020200250 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  216204  ER  RCT/LKO      SUIT BARRED CASE.AS PER RCT ACT.FROM THE FILE IT APPEARS THAT THE TANK WAGON NO,ER92958 AGNST.RR244620 DT.18-3-99 EX BGB TO MGS NOT REACHED AT DEST.BUT MISDESPATCHED TO DNR&WAS CONSUMED BY THE LOCOFOREMAN ON 16-01-2000.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 10  OC/452/1993  2020200255 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  204753  ER  RCT/PNBE      THE CASE IS CONTESTED ON THE GROUND OF ENTRUSTMENT OF THE CONSIGNMENT TO THE RLY.CARRIAGE UNDER SEC.(2)AS WELL AS DENIED THE SERVICE OF CLAIM NOTICE.MOREVER S.E.RLY HAS REPUDIETED THIS CLAIM.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 11  OC/1330/1996  2020200321 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  632668  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 28-FEB-14 in favour of Party      WEAK ON MERIT.NOT YET AWARDED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 12  OC/148/2002  2020200364 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  662257  ER  RCT/CCC      SUBJUDICE NOT YET BY LD. RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 13  OC/895/1994  2020200400 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  207917  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 27-AUG-10 in favour of Party      S.E.RLY,S TRAFFIC,MISJOINDER OF PARTY.RELEVANT CLAIM FILE ALONGWITH PAPRRS T/S TO S.E.RLY FOR N/A.NOT YET AWARDED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 14  OC/1445/1999  2020200428 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  400808  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 27-AUG-10 in favour of Party      S.E.RLY,S TRAFFIC.MISJOINDER OF PARTY.NOT YET AWARDED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 15  OC/368/1997  2020200429 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  246074  ER  RCT/BPL      SUBJUDICE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 16  OA/255/1999  2020200516 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  241494  ER  RCT/CCC      THE APPLICANT FILED C A FOR SHORTDELIVERY OF 14.920 M.T. H.R.PLATES IMPLEADING E.& S.E.RLY.AND M/S.BRAITHWAITE & CO. LTD.AS RESPONDANT.THE CASE IS SUBJUDICE BEFORE RCT/KOL.  12/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 17  TA/479/1993  2020200608 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  60116  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 20-MAY-03 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF PIG IRON BOOKED FROM BOKARO TO K.P.DOCK.BOTH E.&S.E.RLY IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT.TRAFFIC RELATES TO S.E.RLY.AND AS AGREED UPON ALL CLAIMS REGISTERED PRIOR TO 1/5/97 FOR CONSIGNMENT BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT BY THE S.E.RLY.HENCE LIABILITY OF E,RLY.IS SHIFTED S.E.RLY.W.S. FILED ACCORDINGLY.  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 18  TA/6541/1991  2020200752 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  58399.2  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 19-JAN-04 in favour of Party      THE TRAFFIC RELATES TO S.E.RLY.AND S.E.RLY. AUTHORITY HAS ALSO BEEN IMPLEADED IN THIS CASE.AS PER PARA 3.OF THE PLAINT THE WAGON HOLDING THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT WAS DIVERTED TO DISTRICT STORE OPEN LINE,SE.RLY. WHO CONSUMED THE CONTENTS.E.RLY. MAY BE EXONERATED FROM THE LIABILITY.  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 19  TA/8898/1991  2020200763 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  58808.27  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 17-FEB-06 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED SHORT-DELIVERY OF H.R.SHEET BOOKED EX.BOKARO TO K.P.DOCK IMPLEADING S.E.RLY & E.RLY.AS RESPONDENT. THE TRAFFIC FALLS UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF S.E.RLY.IN TERMS OF CCO/E.RLY,S D.O.LETTER NO.C/99/3/INDEX VOL.III DT.15/4/97 AND CCO/S.E.RLY,S LETTER NO.CA2/27(CPT RLY.)DT.1/5/97,ALL CLAIMS REGISTERED W.E.F.1/5/97 ONWARDS BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT BY E.RLY.AND PRIOR TO THAT DATE WILL BE DEALT BY S.E.RLY.HENCE THE LIABILITY OF E.RLY. IN THE INSTANT CASE IS SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.W.S.FILED ACCORDINGLY.  11/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 20  TA/1109/1992  2020200797 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  36761.2  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 17-JUN-04 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED FOR S/D OF PIG IRON BOOKED EX.BOKARO TO K.P.DOCK IMPLEADING S.E.RLY& E.RLY.AS RESPONDENT.TRAFFIC RELATES TO S.E.RLY.AND AS AGREED UPON ALL CLAIMS REGISTERED PRIOR TO 1/5/97 FOR CONSIGNMENT BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT BY S.E.RLY.HENCE LIABILITY OF E.RLY.IN THIS CASE IS SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.FILED W.S.ACCORDINGLY.  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 21  TA/1122/1992  2020200801 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  222007.5  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 31-JAN-08 in favour of Party      E.&S.E.RLY.ARE BOTH IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE AS RESPONDENT.TRAFFIC RELATES TO S.E.RLY.AND AS AGREED UPON,ALL CLAIMS CASES REGISTERED PRIOR TO 1/5/97 FOR CONSIGNMENT BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT BY S.E.RLY.HENCE LIABILITY OF E.RLY. IN THIS CASE IS SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.W.S.FILED ACCORDINGLY.  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 22  TA/1118/1992  2020200871 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  59314.5  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 14-JUN-04 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED FOR S/D OF PIG IRON BOOKED EX.BOKARO TOK.P.DOCK IMPLEADING S.E.RLY.E.RLY.AS RESPONDENT.TRAFFIC RELATES TO S.E.RLY.AND AS AGREED UPON,ALL CLAIMS CASES REGISTERED PRIOR TO 1/5/97 FOR CONSIGNMENT BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT BY S.E.RLY.HENCE LIABILITY OF E.RLY.IN THIS CASE IS SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.W.S.FILRD ACCORDINGLY.  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 23  TA/13226/1990  2020200951 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  30000  ER  RCT/CCC      THE CASE HAS BEEN DECREED BY RCT/KOL AND AWAITING FOR SATISFACTION OF DECREE.  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 24  TA/8005/1991  2020201009 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  96036.45  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 04-MAR-05 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED FOR S/D OF C.R.SHEET BOOKED EX.BOKARO TO K.P.DOCK UNDER INV/RR IS 241/970136 DT.14/11/77.RECORDS OF 1977 ARE NOT AVAILABLE.TRAFFIC RELATES TO THE S.E.RLY.AND AS AGREED UPON,ALL CLAIMS REGISTERED PRIOR TO 1/5/97 FOR CONSIGNMENT BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT BY S.E.RLY.HENCE LIABILITY OF E,RLY. IN THIS CASE IA SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.FILED W.S.ACCORDINGLY.  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 25  TA/8007/1991  2020201010 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  58153.6  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 16-JAN-03 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED NON-DELIVERY OF WIRE RODS EX.BHILAI TO K.P.DOCK IMPLEADING S.E.RLY.&E.RLY.AS RESPONDENT.THE TRAFFIC FALLS UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF S.E.RLY.IN TERMS OF CCO/E.RLY,S D.O.LETTER NO.C/99/3/INDEX VOL.III DT.15/4/97 AND CCO/S.E.RLY,S LETTER NO.CA2/27(CPT RLY.)DT.20/5/97,ALL CLAIMS REGISTERED W.E.F.1/5/97 ONWARDS BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT WITH BY E.RLY.AND PRIOR TO THAT DATE WILL DEALT BY S.E.RLY. HENCE THE LIABILITY IN THE INSTANT CASE IS SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.W.S.FILED ACCORDINGLY.  11/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 26  TA/3009/1991  2020201649 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  81764.12  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 21-MAY-03 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED SHORT DELIVERY OF R.S.JOISTS BOOKED EX.BHELAI STEEL PLANT TO K.P.DOCK IMPLEADING E.& S.E.RLY. AS RESPONDENT.THE TRAFFIC FALLS UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF S.E.RLY.IN TERMS OF CCO/E.RLY,S D.O.LETTER NO.C/99/3/INDEXVOL III DT.15/4/97 AND CCO/S.E.RLY,S LETTER NO.CA2/(CPT RLY.) DT.20/5/97,ALL CLAIMS REGISTERED W.E.F.1/5/97 ONWARDS BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT BY E.RLY.AND PRIOR TO THAT DATE WILL DEAL BY S.E.RLY.HENCE LIABILITY IN THIS CASE IS SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.W.S.FILED ACCORDINGLY.  12/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 27  OA/1978/1993  2020202504 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  344207  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 23-AUG-10 in favour of Party      THAT THE SUIT IS BAD FOR MISJOINDER OF PARTY.TRAFFIC RELATES TO S.E.RLY,ACCORDINGLY W.S. FILED.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 28  TA/851/1992  2020300462 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  11900  ER  RCT/CCC      COSIGNMENT(PIG IRON)BOOKED EX.BOKARO STEEL PLANT TOSHIBPUR CHAR.TRAFFIC OF S.E.RLY.PARTY IMPLEADED S.E.RLY.ONLY AS RESPONDENT.HENCE E.RLY. HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY W.S.  12/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 29  TA/506/1993  2020300555 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  283223.5  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 27-AUG-10 in favour of Party      SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY TRAFFIC.MISJOINDER OF PARTY.THE CASE IS SUBJUDICE,NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 30  OA/332/1999  2020301160 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  237673  ER  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 13-JUN-16 in favour of Party      SUBJUDICE. NOT YET DETERMIND LD. RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 31  OC/890/2003  2020301183 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  313102  ER  RCT/CCC      SUBJUDICE. NOT YET DETERMIND BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 32  TA/12703/1991  2020301514 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  26703  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 09-MAR-05 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED SHORT-DELIVERY OF M.S.ROUND BOOKED EX.BHELAI TO K.P.DOCK IMPLEADING S.E.RLY.& E.RLY.AS RESPONDENT.THE TRAFFIC FALLS UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF S.E.RLY.IN TERMS OF CCO/E.RLY,S D.O.LETTER NO.C/99/3/INDEX VOL.III DT.15/4/97 AND CCO/S.E.RLY,S LETTER NO.CA2/27(CPT RLY.)DT. 20/5/97,ALL CLAIMS REGISTERED W.E.F.1/5/97 ONWARDS BOOKED TO K.P.DOCK WILL BE DEALT WITH E.RLY.AND PRIOR TO THAT DATE WILL DEALT BY S.E.RLY.HENCE THE LIABILITY OF E.RLY. IN THIS INSTANT CASE IS SHIFTED TO S.E.RLY.W.S.FILED ACCORDINGLY.  11/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 33  OC/1444/1999  2020301527 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  319691  ER  RCT/PNBE      THE CASE RELATES TO S.E.RLY.THE CASE IS CONTESTING BY THEM FILING W.S.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 34  OA/9/2004  2020302812 IBP CO LIMITED  29478.39  ER  RCT/PNBE      NOT YET FINALISED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 35  OA/10/2004  2020302846 IBP CO LIMITED  17337.19  ER  RCT/PNBE      SUIT BARRED CASE. NOT YEAT FINALISED BY LD.RCT.  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 36  OA/13/2004  2020400120 IBP CO LIMITED  57423  ER  RCT/PNBE      SUIT BARED CASE. NOT YET FINALISED BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 37  OA/40/2004  2020400402 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION L  152808  ER  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 27-APR-07 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT FILED SIX CLAIM APPLICATIONS VIZ OC,39/04,40/04,41/04,43/O4,46/04&47/04 FOR NONDELIVERY OF SIX WAGNS CLUBBED IN ONE RR.OUT OF SIX CAS THREE CAS HAVE BEEN DECREED IN FAVOUR OF APPLICANT &HAVE ALREADY BEEN SATISFIED.THE REST CA NO.39,43,46 STILL PENDING AT RCT.  12/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 38  TA/50004/2005  2020500603 IBP CO LIMITED  209564  ER  RCT/RNC      THIS IS SUIT BARED CASE.  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 39  OA/138/2006  2020600184 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD  2394918  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 28-DEC-06 in favour of Party      WEAK ON MERIT.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  18/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 40  OA/126/2007  2020600344 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  1590695  ER  RCT/CCC      DCR GROUND.RLY HAS NO LIABILITY.NOT YET AWARDED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 41  TA/96006/1996  2020700017 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  135807  ER  RCT/RNC      SUIT WAS T/S FROM RCT/PATNA TO RCT/RANCHI. THIS IS SUIT BARD CASE. NOT YET FINALISED BY LD.TRIBUNAL.  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 42  OC/260/1997  2020700018 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  280545  ER  RCT/PNBE      IN THIS CASE PARTY CLAIMED RS.2,80,545/- FOR S/D OF PIG IRON,BOOKED EX VZP STEEL PLANT TO DIGHA GHAT (PATNA)UNDER RR.E896945 DT.23-06-94.LOADING NOT WITNESSED BY RLY.UNLOADED 34660 KG.AGAINST 61350 KG.OR 26690 KG. SHORT.REWAIGHMENT DELIVERY GRANTED.SHORT DELIVERY PROVED.NO DECISION TAKEN AT CLAIM STAGE.THERE IS NO GROUND TO CONTEST.  21/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 43  OA/2/1995  2020700199 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  339249  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 19-JAN-15 in favour of Party      PARTY IS PUT TO STRICT PROOF REG.SHORTAGE.NOT YET AWARDED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 44  OA/97004/1997  2020700236 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  2726  ER  RCT/RNC      SUIT-BARRED CASE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 45  OC/97006/1997  2020700294 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  15449  ER  RCT/RNC      TIME-BARRED CASE.SUBJUDICE NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD. RCT  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 46  OA/440/2007  2020700550 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  220891  ER  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 20-JAN-15 in favour of Party      WEAK ON MERIT.NOT YET AWARDED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 47  OA/524/1997  2020700591 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  580109  ER  RCT/PNBE      IN THIS CASE PARTY CLAIMED RS.5,80,109/- FOR N/D OF STEEL BOOKED EX BHILAI TO R.N.GOODSHED PNBE UNDER RR 367/281420 DT.28-8-94.ENQUIRY REVEALED THAT WGN.NO.ER 105701 CONTG.BILLETS T/S INTO WGN.NO.ER 44319 & DELIVERED TO SAIL.SAIL HAS CONFIRMED THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAID WGN.ON 20-7-99. DCR GROUND. NOT YET AWARDED.  21/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 48  TA/8/1994  2020700828 INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LTD  11487  ER  RCT/CCC      IN THIS CASE A/D GRANTED ON REQUEST &6M.T.STEEL BILLETS FOUND SHORTAGE.AS THE SHORTAGE FOUND ON RE-WAIGHTMENT AT DESTINATION THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT GROUND TO CONTEST THE CASE.HOWEVER RLY. HAS FILED PWS ON THE GROUND OF SEC.65(2) RLY.ACT.  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 49  TA/13121/1990  2020700832 INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LTD  16109  ER  RCT/CCC      THE APPLICANT CLAIMED RS.16109.90/-FOR SHORT DELIVERY OF ROUNDS BOOKED EXSCOB SDG TO SHIBPURCHAR UNDER INV/RR NO.56/A-299774 15/11/78.INVOICE REGISTER OF 1978 IS NOT AVAILABLE.CLAIM FILE IS NOT AVAILABLE .RLY. HAS NO SUFFIENT GROUND TO CONTEST THE CASE AT RCT.  11/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 50  TA/92002/1992  2020701206 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  2214  ER  RCT/RNC      SUIT-BARRED CASE.PARTY IS TO PROVE HIS CLAIM.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 51  TA/92003/1992  2020701207 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  7109  ER  RCT/RNC      SUBJUDICE,NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD. RCT.PARTY IS TO PROVE HIS CLAIM  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 52  TA/92004/1992  2020701208 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  2587  ER  RCT/RNC      SUBJUDICE,NOT YET AWARDED.PARTY IS TO PROVE HIS CLAIM.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 53  OC/37/1990  2020701240 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  52993  ER  RCT/PNBE      THE BUNDLES ARE OF APPROX.12 MTRS. IN LENGTH,BUT THE BINDINGS PROVIDED IN EACH BUNDLE ARE ONLY 4 IN NUMBERS IN EACH BUNDLE I.E.AS PER SPECIFICATION OF P/41 THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 8 BINDINGS IN EACH BUNDLE.RLY.CONTESTING THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF PACKING CONDITION WHICH IS NOT COMPLIED WITH.THE CLAIM WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT AS THE DATE OF FILING IS 19/2/90.  11/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 54  OA/94009/1990  2020701360 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  28192  ER  RCT/RNC      BOTH FORWARDING & DESTINATION STN. LIES UNDER S.E. RLY.FREIGHT CHARGES CLLECTED BY S.E.RLY.MONEY DEPOSITED TO CCM/SE RLY.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 55  OA/9704/1997  2020701369 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  14958  ER  RCT/RNC      SUIT-BARRED CASE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 56  OA/7/1990  2020701370 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  139521  ER  RCT/RNC      CHRQUE BEARING NO.864826 DT.23.10.92 FOR RS.1,35,603/-WAS ISSUED TOWARDS SETTLEMENT DURING THE PENDENCY OF SUIT AT RCT/PATNA BUT NOBODY TURNED UP TO COLLECT.RLY. CONTESTING THE CASE.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 57  OA/12/1990  2020701376 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  398011  ER  RCT/RNC      CONSIGNMENT ARRIVED BUT PARTY NOT TURNED UP TO TAKE DELIVERY.RLY.CONSUMES THE GOODS.NOT YET FINALISED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 58  OA/8/1990  2020701385 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  89488  ER  RCT/RNC      TIME-BARRED CASE,NON-COMPLIANCE OF SEC.106.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD. RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 59  TA/91006/1991  2020800027 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  102000  ER  RCT/RNC      SUIT-BARRED CASE.NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 60  OA/91008/1991  2020800028 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  5438  ER  RCT/RNC      THE CASE WAS ORIGINALY FILED BY RCT/PATNA.NOW IT IS SUBJUDICE AT RCT/RANCI. NOT YET FINALISD BY RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 61  TA/4/1990  2020800059 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  10736  ER  RCT/RNC      CHEQUE WAS ISSUED VIDE NO,863706 DATED 25/10/91 FOR RS.11280/-BUT DUE TO NON-AVAILABLE OF OLD RECORD ENCASHMENT REPORT NOT YET RECEIVED.PARTY IS TO PROVE HIS CLAIM.  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 62  TA/13/1990  2020800061 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  122720  ER  RCT/RNC      NON-COMPLIANCE OF SEC.78B NOTICE.THE CASE IS SUBJUDICE,NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 63  TA/92001/1992  2020800071 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  564687  ER  RCT/RNC      SUBJUDICE,NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD. RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 64  TA/5874/1992  2020800203 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  6749  ER  RCT/CCC      IN THIS CASE RE-WEIGHTMENT GRANTED BY RLY.FOUND SHORTAGE& SHORT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY RLY.AUTHORITY.RLY. HAS NO SUFFICIENT GROUND TO CONTEST THE CASE AT RCT,ONLY PWS FILED FOR P/41 NOT COMPLIED WITH  13/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 65  OA/117/2008  2020800222 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  1185977  ER  RCT/CCC      S/C,SWA,UNLOADING NOT SUPERVISED.NOT YET AWARDED.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 66  TA/95007/1995  2020800224 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  7258  ER  RCT/RNC      APPLICANT IS TO PROVE HIS CLAIM.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 67  TA/10140/2001  2020800229 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  11473  ER  RCT/RNC      SUIT WAS T/S FROM RCT/PATNA TO RCT/RANCHI. ON GOING THROUGH THE PLAINT IT REVEALS THAT APPLICANT AS IMPLEATED THE GM/N F RLY AND RESPONDENT.E.RLY HAS NO LIABLE.  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 68  TA/92017/1992  2020800245 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  2476  ER  RCT/RNC      DISPUTE IN SERVICE OF CLAIM NOTICE.SUBJUDICE,NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD.RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 69  OA/99003/1999  2020800260 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  159077  ER  RCT/RNC      SUBJUDICE NOT YET DETARMINBD BY LD.RCT  17/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 70  TA/91003/1991  2020800390 CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD  9923  ER  RCT/RNC      PARTY IS TO PROVE HIS CLAIM.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 71  TA/205/1995  2020900020 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  30000  ER  RCT/PNBE      AS PER LIST OF TRACED WGN.DT.9/9/87 DULY SIGNED BOTH THE PARTIES IT APPEARS FROM THE REMARKS COLUMN(SL NO.22)"NPO/GYA"ON 4/7-6-78 AND APPART FROM THE REMARKS APPEARS ON THE PLAINT AT P/2,THAT THE CLAIMED WGN.DELIVERED TO THE PARTY.  11/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 72  TA/97008/1997  2020900049 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED  2267  ER  RCT/RNC      SUBJUDICE,NOT YET DETERMINED BY LD. RCT.  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 73  OA/35/1981  2021300084 .FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  100916  ER  Case Settled by RCT PATNA on 24-OCT-07 in favour of Party      THE SUBJECT CLAIM CASE HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS 35/81 IN PLACE OF 35B/2/10 ARISING IN MS 9/81 AS THE SYSTEM NOT ACCEPTING THE DENOMINATION NO SUCH AS 35B/2/10.FCI FILED THE CASE AGAINST THE GM/E.RLY AND N.RLY.DUE TO NON-DELIVERY OF 550 BAGS OF WHEAT UNDER WAGON NO.NR-85275 WHICH WAS BOOKED FROM JAGROAN WITH OTHER 3 WAGONS TO MONGHYR. RECOINCILIATION UPTO YEAR 2003 TOOK PLACE WITH FCI FOR ALL CASES.THE CASE DISMISSED BY HON,BLE RCT/PATNA ON 24.10.2007 AND THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL AT HC PATNA VIDE NO.MA 21 OF 2008.AS PER ORDER DATED 25.01.2010,HON,BLE HC DIRECTED APPRISE THE STATUS OF THE CASE AS WILL BE DECIDED BY JIDRP AS THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT INVOLVED RS.100916/-  27/Jan/2014  Yes  Yes  No  No
 74  OC/11/2001  2030000215 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1303600  NR  RCT/DLI      THE SAID WAGON MATERIAL WAS TRANSSHIPPED IN TO THE OTHER WAGON NO 907170 AND PLACED THE SAME AT THE IOC SIDING WHILE THEY REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAME .THAT THE CLAIMENT COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR OWN WRONG AS AT NO POINT OF TIME BETWEEN 11/05/98 AND 22/05/98 THE CLAIMANT HAS RAISED ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF WAGON NO 907170 FROM THEIR SITE .THE RESPONDENT IS PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 93 (F) 93(H)98 102 (C) (I),AND 65 (2)OF THE RAILWAY ACT AND THE TANK WAGON IN QUESTION WAS LOADED BY THE CONIGNOR HIMSELF IN HIS PRIVATE SIDING AND LOADING ,SEALING AND DIP MEASUREMENT WAS DONE BY RAILWAY STAFF AT ANY POINT OF TIME UPTO LOADING .MOREOVER A SAID TO CONTAION FOR SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED (SWA)AND ACCORDINGLY F/ NOTE WAS ISSUED .THE SAID TANK WAGON BOOKED AND LOADED AS ABOVE WAS TRANSSHIPPED ALSO BY IOC STAFF THEMSELVES AND THE TRANSSIPPED AND DIP MEASUREMENT WAS ALSO NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF .THE TRANSSHIPPED WAGON ,TRANSSHIPPED IOC STAFF THEMSELVES AS MENTIONED ABOVE ARRIVED AT DESTINATION WITH TOP AND BOTTOMMSEALS INTACTAND IN SOUND CONDITION WITHOUT ANY LEAKAGE ON 11/05/98 BUT THE SAME WAS REFUSED BY IOC TO ACCEPT HENCE NO LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY BEING A CASE OF NONDELIVERY OF WAGON NO 35708 AS THE MATERIAL WAS TRANSSHIPPED IN WAGON NO 907170 AND THE WAGON WAS PUT AT THE SIDING OF THE IOC 11/05/98 .HENCE NO LIABILTY OF THE RAILWAY .BEING A CASE OF NON DELIVERY OF WAGON NO 35708.TANK WAGON NO ER 35708 HAD BEEN ADJUSTED WITH UNCONECTED T/W NO WR 906809 OF SAME PRODCTS CONSUMED BY IOC LTD AT HISSAR ON 16/4/93.  20/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 75  TA/21/2001  2030100135 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  53491  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 13-SEP-05 in favour of Party      ANY ENDOSSEMENT IN THE DELEVERYSERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78 B RLY ACT WAS NOT DENIED THE WAGON IN QUESTION WAS DELIVERD ON 26/7/89 UNDER CLER RECIPT. THE APPLICANT HAS NO LOCUS STAUDI TO FILE THE CLAIM APPLICATION. THE CONSIGMENT IN QUESTION WAS LOODED AND UNLOODED IN THEW PRIVATE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT. THER FOR RESPONDENT IS NOT LIBLE TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION. THE CONSIGMENT WAS PLASED IS THE APPLICANT SIDING ON 24/7/89 AND AFTER REJESTION OF THE WEIGHMENT DELIVERY. THE DELIVERY WAS EFFECTED ON 26/7/89 WITHOUT BOOK,  14/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 76  OC/22/2002  2030200064 M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPO.  248933  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 15-JUL-03 in favour of Party      THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GRANT OF CLEARANCE BY THE HIGH COURT POWERED COMMITTEE AND AS SUCH IS LIABLE TO THE DISIMISSED. IT WAS STATED THAT THE SUBJECT TANK WAGON DULY REACHED WITH THE RANK AT THE DESTINATION STIATION ON 14,10,2006 AND WAS PLACED IN THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT AT SSB FOR UNLOADING. THE CONTENTS OF TANK WAGON WAS DECANTED BY THE CONSIGNEE IN ITS OWN PRIVATE SIDING THE CASE IS ADJOURLAD SINE-DIE BY RCT DLI  12/Jul/2011  No  No  No  No
 77  OC/57/2006  2030200066 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  212838  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 20-MAY-14 in favour of Party      THAT THE CONTENTS OF TANK WAGON NO NF 5742 WERE DECANTED AND CONSUMED BY IOC ON 14.5.95 AT SSB DELHI AS PER MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN OIL COMPNIES THE DECANTATION AND CONSUMPTION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE TANK WAGON OF ONE COMPANY BY ANOTHER COMPANY IS ADJUSTABLE BETWEEN THEM.  23/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 78  OA/49/2002  2030200120 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  3568956  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH on 04-FEB-15 in favour of Party       IT WAS DENIED THAT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY A LEGALLY AUTHORISED PERSON. NO NOTICE U/S 106 OF THE RAILWAY ACT WAS SERVED. RAILWAY IS PROTECTED U/S 93(I) OF THE RAILWAY ACT. THERE IS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE RESPODENT RAILWAY.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 79  OA/50/2002  2030200121 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1431114  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH on 04-FEB-15 in favour of Party      THAT NO VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE RAILWAY ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT. THE PRETITION UNDER SECTION 65,97 AND 93 WAS SOUGHT. IT WAS DENIED THAT THERE WAS ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED TO DISMISS THE CLAIM APPLICATION.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 80  TA/1134/1997  2030200349 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  40246  NR  HC/ALD       THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS REMOVED WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE. THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED SURVEY BECAUSE COMPRTROLLER OF INSURANCE HAD GRANTED HIM A BECAUSE TO SURVEY TO THE MATTERS RELATING TO INSURANCE COMPANY ONLY AND THEREFORE, THE SURVEY REPORT ISIN ADMISIBLE IN EVIDENCE, THE SURVEYER HAD EXCEEDED HIS JURNDICTION. THE LOADING AND UNLOADING WAS DONE BY THE CONSIGNOR TO HIS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT SUPERVISIOR OF THE RESPODENT AND THE PARTICULARS WERE ENTERED IN THE RR OR SAID TO CONTAIN BASIS. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AND WEIGHED INSIDE THE APPLICANT"S PLAINT AT BHILAI AND AFTER THE WEIGHMENT, THE CONSIGNMENT REMAINED INSIDE THE PLANT FOR ABOUT32-35 HOUR UNDER THE CUSTUDY OF THE APPLICANT ITSELF. THAT NO WEIGHMENT WAS DONEWHEN THE STOCK WAS HANDED OVER TO THE RESPODENT. THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED THE DESTINATION WITHOUT UNDER DELAY AND THAT THE RAILWAY IS PROTECTED U/S 93(F) AND94OF THE ACT 1989.  21/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 81  TA/1374/1997  2030300214 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  65646  NR  HC/ALD      THAT THE SUBJECT WAGON WAS PLACED FOR UNLOADING AT SAIL SIDING AT GULDHAR ON 6/2/88 AT 6HARS WITHEN ROMATE TRANSIT PERIOD WITHOUT ANY INTERFERANCE ENROUTE IN TRANSIT AFTER RECOVERY THE FOR REWEIGHMENT IT WAS THOURGH EXAMINED AND FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SIGNATURE OF INTERFERNCE IN THE WAGON THE REQUEST FOR THE REWEIGHMENT WAS TUOENED DONE,  11/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 82  TA/1375/1997  2030300215 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  89849  NR  HC/ALD      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOODING IN THE APPLICANTS SIDING BY THER WERE ME, NOT SUPERVIED BY THE RLY STAFF THE RLY IS NOT RESPONSBLE FOR THE LOSS OR SHORTIGE OCEUSSED AFTER PLACING THE WAGON AT THESPECIFIED POINT OF INTERCHARGE OF WAGON UNDER SECTION 94 OF THE RLY ACT. THE APPLICANT HAD TAKEN DELIVERY WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AS REMARKS IN THE DELIVERY BOOK THAT THE WEIGHMENT OR LOADING OR PACKING AT THE POINT OF AGAIN WAS NOT DONE INSPECTED OR SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF AND THAT THE REWIEGHMENT DONE A PRIVATE PARTY IS NOT BINDING UPON THE RLY.  28/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 83  TA/1320/1997  2030300245 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  72158  NR  HC/ALD      THE RLY ADMIN ADMITTED THE BOOKING PARTICULAR OF THE COSIGNMENT IT WAS LOADED IN THE APPLICANT SIDING IT WAS BOOKED UNDER L AND U CONDITION AND WITH SWA REMARKS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTIAN IS PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 93 F I AND SECTION 94 OF THE RAILWAY ACT 1989 THAT THE GOODS REMOVED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER CLER RECIEPT AND THE APPLICANT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE COMPETENT PERSON.  01/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 84  TA/1163/1997  2030300247 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  72781  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 06-SEP-05 in favour of Party      THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOODED IN THE PRIVATE SIDING AND IT WAS BOOKING UNDER L AND U CONDITION AND SWA REMARKS, THE RESPONDENT IS PROTECTED UNDER SEC 93 F I AND SEC 94 OF THE RLY ACT THAT THE GOODS WER RECIVED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER CLEAR RECIEPT,  28/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 85  TA/692/1997  2030300376 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  86048  NR  HC/ALD      THAT NO LEGAL AND VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF RLY ACT 1989 WAS SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT. THAT THE CLAIM APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED ,VERIFIED AND FILED BY THE COMPETENT PERSON. THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION THAT THE CONSIGNMENT IS BOOKED RAKE BASES WAS LOADED AT THE CONSIGNORS PRIVATE SIDING BY HIMWITHOUT SUPERVISION OF THE RLY. STAFF UNDER SAID TO CONTAIN SENDER WEIGHT ACCEPTEDAND OWNER RIST REMARKS  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 86  TA/979/1997  2030300378 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  97571  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 22-MAR-06 in favour of Party      THE STATUTORY NOTICE IS NOT VALID. THE SURVEYOR REPORT IS NOT VALID. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE CONSIGNOR WITHOUT THE SUPERVISIONOF RLY. STAFF AND ALSO THE CONSIGNMENT WAS UNLOADED IN THE PRIVATE SIDING. HENCE NO LIABILITY CAN BE ATTACHED AFTER THE TERMINAL POINT. THE WEIGHMENT WASCORRECTLY REJECTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THERE IS NO LAW FOR THE GOVERNMENT STAFF TO GO TO THE PRIVATE SIDING AND WITNESS WHATSOEVER. THE GOODS WERE CARRIED WITH ALL DUE CASE AND NO SHORTAGE ENROUTE AS ON RECORDS HENCE THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED.  20/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 87  OA/36/2003  2030300533 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  592673  NR  HC/DLI       IT WAS STATED THAT WAGON IN QUESTION WAS DERAILED AND THE OPEN DELIVERY WAS ARRANGED. THE SHORTAGE CERTIFICATED IS NOT THE CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RESPODENT. THE DERAILMENT WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE RESPODENT AND AS SUCH THE RESPODENT IS PROTECTED UNDER SECTION93(I,F)98,94 OF THE RAILWAY ACT. IT WAS STATED THAT PRODUCT WAS DRAINED OUT COMPLETLY IN SSB YARD ON 10/06/2000.  25/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 88  TA/1267/1997  2030300611 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  57547  NR  HC/ALD       THAT THE RESPODENT WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO THE RE-WEIGH THE CONSIGNMENT. THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT INDEPENDENT, BUT WAS ENGAGED BY THE PLANTIFF/APPLICANT. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED AT THE DESTINATION STATION FROM THE ORIGINAL WAGON WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE ENROUTE UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE WITHOUT ANY REMARKS IN THE DELIVERY BOOK.  24/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 89  TA/1164/1997  2030300613 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  58663.47  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 07-JUL-05 in favour of Party      THAT THE PLAINTIFF SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78-B I.R.ACT IS CHALLENGED. THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED AT THE DESTINATION STATION FROM THE ORIGINAL WAGON WITHOUT ANY INTERFERANCE ENROUTE AND CLEAR SIGNATURE WITHOUT ANY REMARKS IN THE DELIVERY BOOK. THE ENQUIRY OF SURVEYOR BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PLAINTIFFS PRIVATE AFFAIR AND HIS REPORT CANNOT DIFFERENT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 90  TA/1093/1997  2030300617 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  69174  NR  HC/ALD      THE APPLICANT ENTRUSTED TO BOOK THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION UNDER SAID TO CONTAIN L AND U CONDITION AND THE WAGON IN ORIGINAL REACHED DESTINATION WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE ENROUTE AS SUCH THE REWEIGHMENT OF THE CONSIGNMENT RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE RLY. ADMINISTRATION AND THE APPLICANT EFFECTED DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND APPEAL TO HIGHER AUTHORITY. IT WAS DENIED THAT THERE WAS ANY SHORTAGE IN THE CONSIGNMENT AND THE RESPONDENT AS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY THING. THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE REMOVED THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE AND AS SUCH THE APPLICATION TO BE DISMISSED.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 91  TA/1242/1997  2030300707 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  55938  NR  HC/ALD      RESPONDENT RAILWAY ADMITTED THE BOOKING PARTICULARS OF THE CONSIGNMENT,BUT STATED THAT IT EAS LOADED IN THE APPLICANTS SIDING AND IT WAS BOOKED UNDER L&U CONDITION AND WITH SWA REMARKS. THE RESPONDENT IS PROTECTEDUNDER SEC93(F)(I)AND SEE 94 OF THE RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE GOODS WERE REMOVED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER CLASS RECEIPT.  28/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 92  TA/1090/1997  2030300747 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  86097  NR  HC/ALD      ADMITTED THE BOOKING OF THE CONSIGHMENT THE RESPONDENT STATED THAT MA P GANESHAN HAD NO AUTHORITY TO FILE THE SUIT TO FILE THE THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS UNDER NO LEGAL ALIGATION TO REWEIGH THE CONSIGHMENT THAT THE SURVEYAR WAS NOT INDEPENDULIAT WAS ENGARED BY THE APPLICANT. THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78B WAS NOT LEGAL AND VALID. THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE OR MISCORDAET OF THE RESPODENT,  17/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 93  TA/1085/1997  2030300748 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  67415  NR  HC/ALD       THE BOOKING CONSIGNMENT IS ADMITTED MR. P. GANESHAN HAD NO AUTHORITY TO FILE THE SUIT. RESPODENT WAS UNDER NO LEGAL LITIGATION TO RE-WEIGHT THE CONSIGNMENT THAT THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT INDEPENDENT WAS ENGAGED BY THE APPLICANT. THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78 B WAS NOT LEGAL AND VALID. THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON MISCONDUCT OF THE RESPODENT.  01/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 94  TA/1091/1997  2030300749 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  68493  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 07-JUL-05 in favour of Party      SIGNATURWITHUT ANY REMARKS IN THE IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT,ADMITTED THE BOOKING OF THE CONSIGNMENT THE RAILWY ADMISTION STATED THAT M/S P GANESLAN HAD NO AUTHRITY TO FIL SUET THE SUERYOR WAS NOT INDEPENDENT THAT WAS ENGAGD BY APPLICANT THE NOITICE UNDER SECTION 78B OF INDIAN RAILWY ACT THYE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED AT THE DESTINATION STATION FROM THE ORIGIONEL WAGON ANY INTERFERENCE INOCABE UNDER CLEAR DELIVERY BOOK,  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 95  TA/1272/1997  2030300750 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  47518  NR  HC/ALD      NOTICEUNDER 78B WASNOT LEGAL AND VALID AND NOTICE FOR AN HANCED CLAIM IN WRITTEN STATEMENT ADMITTED THE BOOKING OF THE CONSIGNMENT. THERE RESPONDENT STATED THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS UNDER NO LEGAL AHLIGATION TO RE-WEEGH THE CONSIGNMENT THAT THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT INDIPERDALBEL WAS ENGAGED BY THE PLAINTIFF APPLICANT. THE S LEARNED BY SECTION 78B OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT THAT THER WAS NO NEGLIGENCE OR MISCONDUCT OF THE RESPORDENT. THAT THE COSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERD AT THE DESTINATION STATION FROM THE ORIGINAL WAS ANY WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE UNDER CLEAR SIGNATUR WITHOUT ANY REMARKS IN THE DELIVERY BOOK,  08/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 96  TA/1246/1997  2030300786 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  37842.85  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 17-NOV-05 in favour of Party      ADMITTED THE BOOKING PARTICULARS THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SEC 78 B OF THE INDIAN RLY ACT WES NOT SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONISIGNON AND THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT UNDER CLEAR RECEPT AND THE SURVEYORS REPORT IS NOT AUTHENTIC,  28/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 97  TA/1244/1997  2030300857 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  52383.71  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 01-SEP-05 in favour of Party      THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN THE APPLICANTS SIDING BY THEIR OWN MEN NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF THE RLY IS NOT RESPONSBLE FOR THE LOSS OR SHORTAGE OCCURRED AFTER PLACING THE WAGON AT THE RPECIFIED POINT OF INTERCHARGE OF WAGON UNDER SECTION 94 OF THE RLY ACT 1989, THE APPLICANT REPSESENTITION HAD TAKIN THE DELVIERY WITHOUT ANY PROTEST OR REMARKS ON THE DELEVERY BOOK THE WEIGHMENT OR LOODING AT THE POINT OF ORIGIN HAD NOT BEEN DONE INSPECTED OR SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF AS IT WAS A WAGON LOOD CONSIGHNMENT,  19/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 98  OA/148/1997  2030301210 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  53441  NR  HC/JAI      THERE WAS NO ABNORMAL DELAY IN MAKING THE CONTENTS AVAILABLE AT THE DESTINATION RATHER THE BOOKED TANK WAGON WAS AVAILABLE WITHIN A PERIOD OF FEW DATES AT THE DESTINATION . THAT THE SEAL WERE INTACT WHEN THE SAID TANK WAGON WAS IN CUSTODY OF THE RESPONDENT .THE DIP MEASERMENT WAS TAKEN WHEN THE UNLOADING HAD ALREADY STATED AND THE APPLICANT HAD OPENED THE LIDS OF THE TANK WAGON AND PIPES HAD FIXED FOR UNLOADING.  20/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 99  OA/17/2002  2030301546 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  135100  NR  RCT/LKO      THE SUIT IS CONTESTED AGAINST EXSSESSIVENESS AND ON TECHNICAL GROUND. HOWEVER THE SUBJECT WAGON WAS ADJUSTED WITH SC 1802 DECANTED AS RECONNECT ON 28/05/95 AT SSB.  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 100  TA/915/1997  2030301638 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  33412  NR  HC/ALD       THAT THE APPLICATION HAS NOT FILED BY A COMPETENT PERSON THAT THE CLAIM APPLICATION I9S BEARED U/S 106 OF THE RAILWAY ACT 1989 HENCE NOT LEGAL AND VALID. THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS INCLUDY SAID TO CONTAIN.  21/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 101  OA/365/1991  2030301659 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  24360  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 17-NOV-98 in favour of Party      THAT THIS IS NO COUS OF ACTION TO FILE THE APPLICANT AS THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT WAS DELVERED TO THE CONSINEE OF APPLICANT UNDER HIS CLEAR RECIPT AND SIGNATUE, AT THE FORWEDING STATION LOODING OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE IN THE SAIL SIDING AND IT WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF. THER A SAID TO CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED. THE WAGON AS LOODED IN THE SIDING AND HANDEDOVER TO THE RLY, REACHED AT DHANDARI KALAN STATION ON 3-89 VERIMUCH WETHER THE SHORTEST FAGET TIME WITHIN CTI DOUS CLERED SAID LABEL INTECT WITHOUT ANY PIFERGE EVRUOT AND THE CONSIGNMENT WAS INTACT CONDITION REQUEST FOR REWEIMENT WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE RLY,  02/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 102  OA/314/1991  2030301661 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  7896  NR  HC/CHG      THE. CONSIGNMENT WERE DELIVERD TO THE CONSIGNMENT APPLICANT UNDER CLER RECEPT AND SIGNATURE AND HENCE THE APPLICANT COMPANY HAD NO CASES OF ACTION TO AS GIVEN THE ORIGINAL RR WERE ADMITTED THE CONSIGNMENT WERE LODDED BY THE SENDER HIMSELF IN HIS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT BRIF SUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF AND SAID TO CONTAIN RRS WARE ISSUED WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CONSIGNMENT.  04/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 103  TA/1084/1997  2030301682 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  44364  NR  HC/ALD      THAT THE RE-WEIGHMENT APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT HAS BEENRIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE RESPONDENT RLY. BEING THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN L AND U CONDITION IN THE PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE RLY. STAFF DURING THE COURSE OF ITS WEIGHMENT TOO WHILE LOADING, AS SUCH THE SAID TO CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED. THE ORIGINAL WAGON REACHED DESTINATION IN SOUND CONDITION. NO SHORTAGE WAS SUSPECTED AS SUCH THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED.  25/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 104  TA/1092/1997  2030301684 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  38130  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 07-JUL-05 in favour of Party      RESPONDENT WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO REWEIGH THE CONSIGNMENT. THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT INDEPENDENT, BUT WAS ENGAGED BY THE APPLICANT, THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE OR MISCONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT, THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80 CPC WAS SERVED, BUT IT WAS NOT LEGAL AND VALID NOTICE. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED AT THE DESTINATION STATION FROM THE ORIGINAL WAGON WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE ENROUTE UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE WITHOUT ANY REMARKS IN THE DELIVERY BOOK  08/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 105  TA/1094/1997  2030301756 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  44027  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 07-JUL-05 in favour of Party      THAT NO VALED NOTICE U/S/B WAS RESERVED BY THE APPLICANT ON THE RESPONDENT. THE APPLICANT CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE WAS REJECTED ON APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE HAD TAKEN DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT WITHOUT ANY QUALIFIED REMARKS IN THE DELIVERY BOOK. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN THEWAGON IN APPLICANTS OWN SIDING AT DURGAPUR BY THE HIS OWN MEN AND WAS NOT SUPERVISED AND VERIFIED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT CHECKED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF. THE REPORT OF SURVEYOR AND PRIVATE REWEIGHMENT IS NOT BINDING ON THE RAILWAY AND ON THAT BASIS THE APPLICANT DOES NOT GET ANY BENEFIT OVER RAILWAY.  20/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 106  OA/482/1990  2030301794 I.I.&STEEL CO. LTD.  271007  NR  RCT/DLI       IT WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO A ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF 19,962 TONNES . IT IS FURTHER WRONG TO ALLEGED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78B OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT 1890 DATED 18.03.1989 WAS RECEIVED. AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 6 NOTICE DATED 18.08.89 WAS RECEIVED THE SAME WAS NOT LEGAL OR VATED.  24/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 107  OC/200/1995  2030301823 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  264214  NR  HC/DLI      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN THE WAGON BY THE CONSIGNOR/ SENDER AT THEIR OWN SIDING WITHOUT ANY SUPERVISION OF THE RAILWAY STAFF AND THE SWA RR WAS ISSUED. THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY THE SENDER WAS ACCEPTED AS CORRECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING THE FREIGHT. THE CONSIGNMENT ARRIVED AT DESTINATION INTACT WITHOUT ANY DELAY AND INTERFERENCE ENROUTE AND WHATEVER HAD BEEN LODED BY THE CONSIGNOR HAS BEEN DELIVERD TO THE CONSIGNEE,THE RAILWAY ADMIN CANNOT BE HEALD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE. THE SHORTAGE CERTIFICAE IS OF NO PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE QUANTUM OF GOODS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DISPATCHED HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DISPATCHED. THE WEIGHTMENT OF THE CONSIGNIMENT AT THE FORWARDING STATION WAS NOT DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE RAILWAY STAFF.  13/Jun/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 108  OA/199/1995  2030301824 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  229656  NR  HC/DLI      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN THE WAGON BY THE CONSIGNOR/ SENDER AT THEIR OWN SIDING WITHOUT ANY SUPERVISION OF THE RAILWAY STAFF AND THE SWA RR WAS ISSUED. THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY THE SENDER WAS ACCEPTED AS CORRECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING THE FREIGHT. THE CONSIGNMENT ARRIVED AT DESTINATION INTACT WITHOUT ANY DELAY AND INTERFERENCE ENROUTE AND WHATEVER HAD BEEN LODED BY THE CONSIGNOR HAS BEEN DELIVERD TO THE CONSIGNEE,THE RAILWAY ADMIN CANNOT BE HEALD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE. THE SHORTAGE CERTIFICAE IS OF NO PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE QUANTUM OF GOODS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DISPATCHED HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DISPATCHED. THE WEIGHTMENT OF THE CONSIGNIMENT AT THE FORWARDING STATION WAS NOT DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE RAILWAY STAFF.  13/Jun/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 109  OA/234/1997  2030301846 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  154589  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 20-MAY-14 in favour of Party       THE CLAIM PETITION HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE DULY AUTHORISED PERSON. NOTICE U/S106 OF THE RLY. ACT IS NOT AS PER THE STATUTARY REQUIRMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION TO FILE THE APPLICATION AS THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF NON- DELIVERY OF TANK WAGON. THE APPLICANT HAS DECANTED AND CONSUMED SEVERAL TANK WAGON CONTAINING DIFFERENT TYPE OF INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS/OIL INCLUDING LDO AS UNCOUNIELED NOT PERTAINING&IT. THE WHEREVER THE RLY. ADMN. IS IN THE POSSESSION OF UNCONNECTED TANK WAGON LOADED WITH INFLAMMABLE LIQUID/OIL. IT CAN NOT DETAIN THE LOADED TANK WAGON CONTAINING LIQUID/OIL BEING HIGHLY INFLAMMABLE AND IS BOUND TO DELIVER IMMEDIATELY TO THE AVAILABLE OIL COMPANYAS UNCONNECTED.THAT ONE OF THE TANK WAGON NO46010 CONTAINING LDO, NOT BELONGING TO IT, WAS ALSO DECANTED AND CONSUMED BY THE APPLICANT ON 27/07/1994 AS UNCONNECTEDIN THEIR OWN PRIVATE SIDING AT SSB WHICH WAS PLACED BY THE RESPODENT. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS AND THE CLAIM IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED.  21/Dec/2010  No  No  No  No
 110  TA/848/1997  2030301902 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  34448  NR  HC/ALD      THE LEGALITY AND VLIDITY OF THE NOTICE U/S 106 OF THE RLY ACT 1989 IS CHALANGED. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER SWA, SAID TO CONTAIN AND OWNER RISK RATE.THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT AT THE DESTINATION STATION A JOINT DIP SURVERY WAS CONDUCTED BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE RESPONDENT LIABLE FOR SHORTAGE AND A JOINT SURVEY REPORT WAS ISSUED ON THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT WITHOUT PREDUDICE AND WITHOUT ACCEPTING ANY LIABILITY , WHICH WAS ALSO SIGNED ON BEHALF OF CONGNEE.  16/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 111  TA/854/1997  2030301903 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  92614  NR  HC/ALD       THE CONSIGNMENT WAS A RAKE LOAD CONSIGNMENT WHICH WAS LOADED AT THE PRIVATE SIDING OF THE CONSIGNOR WITHOUT SUPOERVISION BY THE RAILWAY STAFF THAT RR WAS ACCEPTED UNDER SAID TO CONTAIN AND SENDE WEIGHT ACCEPT CONDITION. THAT THE SURVEY JOINT REPORT ISSUED AT THE REQUIST OF THE CONSIGNEE, WAS NOT AN ACCEPTANCE OF LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAY ADMN. AND THAT WHAT WAS LOADED AT THE FORWARDING STATION,THE SAME QUANTITY WAS DELIVERED AT THE DESTINATION STATION. THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE UNCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAY ADMN. DURING THE ENTIRE TRANSHIPMENT OF THE CONSIGNMENT CONSQUENTLY ON THIS GROUNDS THE RESPODENT SOUGHT DISMISSED OF THE CLAIM APPLICATION.  20/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 112  OA/282/1997  2030301911 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  72092  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD on 30-JUL-12 in favour of Party      THAT ALLEGED NOTICED DATED 14/3/95 WAS NOT SERVED WITH STATUARY PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE NOT APPEAL TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE APPLICANT TO PROVE SERVICE OF NOTICE WITHIN TIME.TANK WAGON NO. NE 700 REACHED AT DESTINATION STATION IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION WITHOUT ANY SIGN OF PILFERAGE OR LEAKAGE AND SAME PLACED IN IOC SIDING.  16/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 113  OA/416/1999  2030301914 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  204204  NR  RCT/DLI      THAT THE SAID TO CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE PARTY AS SWA BASIS AND THE LOADING DIPPING ,SEALING NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF WHICH IS DONEAT THE SIDING FROM THE PARTY, HENCE THE RESPONDENT ARE PROTECTED U/S 94 AND 93/F AND 98 OF RLY ACT. THE SUBJECT TANK WAGON WAS NOTICED IN LEAKING CONDITION AT CHAPRA/NE RLY. ON 18/12/96 AND THE CONDITION WERE TRANSHIPPED INCNG TANK WAGON NO 18244 AND AGAIN TRANSHIPPED INTO BC TANK WAGON NO. CR 101449. JOINT DIP WAS TAKEN AND WAS FOUND 76CMS. THE SAID TANK WAGON WAS RECEIVED AT SCPD AND PLACED AT IOC SIDING ON 20/5/97 AND RELEASED ON 21/5/97. IT IS DENIED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS NOT DELIERED TO THE IOC.  21/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 114  OA/137/2000  2030301928 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  266562  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 02-APR-14 in favour of Party       THAT THE SAID TO CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE PARTY AND THE LOADING, DIPPING, WEIGHMENT, SEALING NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF, HENCE THE RESPODENT ARE PROTECTED U/S94,93(F) AND 98 OF RAILWAY ACT. IT WAS STATED THAT THE WAGON WAS PROVIDED BY THE RESPODENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR LOADING AT THEIR SIDING. IT WAS DENIED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFERED ANY LO0SS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RESPODENT AS ALLEGED IN THE POSE. HOWEVER THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PARTY AT THE FORWARDING STATION. THAT AS PER JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE LEAKAGE WAS FROM THE BOTTOM VALUE. THE CONSIGNMENT REACHAD THE DESTINATIONWEATHER THREE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF BOOKING, HENCE THE CHANCES OF INTERFERENCE TO TRANSIT ARE NEGLIGABLE, THAT IN CASE BOTTOM SEALS ARE NOT PROVIDED, OIL CANNOT BE FLOWN OUT UNLESS TOP MASTER VALUE IS OPRATED THAN ONLY OIL CAN BE FLOWN BY OPRATING BOTTOM VALUE. IF TOP SEALS IS BROKEN AND ALL BOTTOM SEALS ARE INTECT, LEAKAGE CANNOT TAKE PLACE TO THE BOTTOM DELIVERY PIPE. HENCE THE RESPODENT ARE NOT RESPORATE FOR ANY SHORTAGE.  19/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 115  OA/348/1996  2030301957 null  82232  NR  HC/CHG       IT WAS DENIED THAT LOADING OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. IT IS FURTHER DENIED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT ARRIVED DESTINATION A PILFERED CONDITION. INFACT THE WAGON IN QUESTION WAS DISPATCHED TO BLOCK RAKE AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED AT DESTINATION WETHER NORMAL TRANSITY PEROID WITHALL ITS DOORS CLOSED AND IN INTECT CONDITION WITHOUT ANY SIGN OFVICTIMISATION AND DISTURBANCE ENROUTE. THE APPLICANT REPRESANTATIVE MADEA REQUEST WITHOUT ANY REASON OR RHIRVE AND WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTIVE IN A ROUTINE MANNER.THE SAID REQUEST WAS CONSIDERD BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REQUEST WAS RIGHTLY AND LEGALLY TURNED DOWN. THE SAID ORDER WAS DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT WERE NEITHER LODGED ANY PROTEST NOR PREFFERED ANY APPEAL BEFOR THE HIGHER AUTHORITY AND REMOVED THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT GIVING ANY REMARK IN THE DELIVERY BOOK.  28/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 116  OA/65/1997  2030301960 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  31781  NR  HC/CHG      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED WITH QUALIFIED REMARKS. LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY. STAFF, DIP NOT TAKEN WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CONSIGNOR WITHOUT ANY PROTEST. IT IS DENIED THAT 41620 LTRS. OF MS WAS ACTUALLY ENTRUSTED TO RAILWAY FOR CARRIAGE. THE WAGON IN QUESTION REACHED DESTINATION WITH BOTH SEALS INTACT WITHOUT ANY SIGN OF PILFERAGE ENROUTE. HOWEVER THE JOINT DIP WAS ALLOWED AT DESTINATION AND TAKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE SHORTAGE OF 2205 LTRS. WAS DENIED THAT AS PER POLICY OFRLY. BD LETTER, IF THE TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS ARE INTACT, THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION WAS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS.  08/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 117  OA/444/1997  2030301961 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  119402  NR  HC/CHG      THAT THE COSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED WITH QUALIFED REMARKS,LOADING NOT SUPERVISE BY RLY STAFF, DIP NOT TAKEN WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CONSIGNOR WITHOUT ANY PROTEST.IT WAS DENIED IF 67200 ITS OF MS WAS ACTUALLY ENTRUSTED TO THE RAILWAY FOR CARRIAGE.IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT JOINT DIP WAS ALLOWED AT DESTINATION AND MENTION IN THE JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE THAT THE WAGON WAS NOT LEAKING.THE SHORTAGE OF 7627 ITS WAS DENIED.  07/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 118  OA/83/1998  2030301962 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  63777  NR  HC/CHG      THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED WITH QUALIFIED REMARKS LOADIG NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF,DIP NOT TAKEN WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CONSIGNOR WITHOUT ANY PROTEST.IT WAS DENIED IF 66760LTS OF MS WAS ACTUALLY ENTRUSTED TO THE RAILWAY FOR CARRIAGE AND T/W REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHOUT INTERFERENCE ENROUTE.IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT IN THE JOINT DIP IT WAS MENTIONED THAT WAGON WAS NOT LEAKING.  07/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 119  OA/420/1996  2030301964 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  81068  NR  HC/CHG      CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED WITH QUALIFIED REMARKS SAED TO CONTAIN SWA,LODING NOT SUPERVISEDBY THE RLY STAFF WHICH WERE ACCPTED OF THE CONSIGNOR WITHER ANY PROTEST.CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED WITH QUALIFIED REMARKS SAID TO CONTAIN SWA,LODING NOT SUPERVISEDBY THE RLY STAFF WHICH WERE ACCPTED OF THE CONSIGNOR WITHER ANY PROTEST.CONSIGNOR WITHER ANY PROTEST.ADMITTED FOR EXTEND OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE. DENIED THAT THE TANK WAGON WAS DEFCETIVE OR THE SAME WAS PARTLY DECANTED INFACT THE CONSIGNEE TOOK THE DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT.THE ANY LETTER DT 22/3/95 WAS EVER WRITTEN BY THE APPLICANT NOR THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT.  16/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 120  OA/28/1999  2030301986 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  16711  NR  HC/CHG      WHETHER THERE WAS ANY SHORTTAGE IN THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION AND IT SO TO WHEL AMOUNT OF COMPANSATION.THE APPLICANT IS INTITLED TO HAVE FROM THE RESPONDANENT RAILWAY ADMINISTIATION.THE RAILWAY ADMINISTIATION.DECLRIED REQVEST REWEIGHMENT BECASE SINCE THE WAGONS ARIVED DESTINATION AS DISTURBANCE ENROUT SO THERE WAS NO COUS FROM ALLWIAF THE REWEIGHMENT OF THE CONSIGNMENTS. THE CASE DECREED ON 05/12/2000 FOR RS-14965/- WITH PROPORATE COSTAND INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12PERCENT PER ANNUMFROM RESPECTIVE DATE OF FILING THE CLAIM APPLICATION.  11/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 121  OA/32/1999  2030301987 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  28515  NR  HC/CHG       BOOKING PARTICULARS AS MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL RAILWAY RECEIPT IS ADMITTED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE CONSIGNOR IN ITS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT SUPERVISION OF RLY. STAFF AND SAID TO CONTAIN RAILWAY RECEIPT WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CONSIGNOR WITHOUT ANT PROTEST. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS RECEIVED AT DESTINATION STATION WHETHER A NORMAL PERIOD WITH ITS DOOR CLOSED AND INTECT CONDITION WITHOUT ANY SIGNOF VICTIMIZATIONAND DISTURBANCE ENROUTE.  28/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 122  OA/207/1997  2030301988 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  13912  NR  HC/CHG      THE APPLICANTS REPRENTATINE RECIVED THE CONSIGNEMENT WITHOUT PROTEST AND UNDER CLER SIGNATUE THE SURVEYAR WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED SURVEY FOR THE PARTIES OTHER THAN INSURANCE COMPANIES BY VIRTURE OF LICENCE GRANETED TO HIM BY COMPTROLLER OF INSURANCE AND SUCH THE REPORT OF THE SURVEYER WAS STATED FOR THE INADMISSIBLE.  01/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 123  OA/31/1999  2030301990 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  20405  NR  HC/CHG      THE CLAIM APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED VERIFIED AND FILED THOURGH COMPETENT AND AUOTHRISED PERSON THE APPLICANT REPRSENTATINE REMOVED THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLEAR SINGATURES THE SURVERYER WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED SURVEY FOR THE PARTEIES OTHER THEN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BY VERTVE FO LICENCE GARANTED TO HIM BY THE COMPTROLLER OF INSURANCE AND ASSUCH THE REPORTS OF THE SURVEYAR LIABLE TO BE REJECTE,  02/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 124  OA/345/1991  2030301997 TISCO  96710  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 24-OCT-95 in favour of Party      THAT THE CLAIM APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN FILED OF A DULY COMPETENT PERSON AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NO CAVSE OF ACETION TO FILE THE PERSENT CLAIM APPLICATION AS THE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS WAS TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT UNDER CLERE RECEIPT AND SIGNATURE,  29/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 125  OA/96/1990  2030301999 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  24516  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 31-MAR-92 in favour of Party      RECEIPT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78-B OF INDIAN RAILWAY HAS BEEN ADMITTED APPLICANT HAS NO COUAS OF ACTION AS THE THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED TO THAM UNDER CLEAR RECIEPT AND SIGNATURE REQUVEST FOR RE-WEIGHMENT DELIVERY WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND THE SAME THERE FORE CINNECTY REJECTED,  03/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 126  TA/615/1990  2030302001 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  24622  NR  HC/CHG       THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE SENDER HIMSELF IN HIS PRIVATE SIDING BEING SUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF.HENCE A SAID TO CONTAIN R R WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CONSIGNOR AND FORUMM PART OF THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE.IT WAS DENIED THAT THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT ARIVED AT DESTINATION IN SHORT CONDITION. PLANTIF REQUEST FOR GRANTING DELIVERY ON REWEIGHMENT BASIS WAS CERJUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FAR AND THE SAME WAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY AND CORRECTLY TURNED DOWN. THE CONSIGNMENT HAVING BEEN DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT& SIGNATURE OF THE CONSIGNEE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF WITNESSING REWEIGHMENT IF ANY GOT DONE BY THE PLANTIFF BY THE INDEPENDENT SURVEYOR AND AS SUCH RESULTS, THEREOF ARE EMPHATICALLY DENIED. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO THE SAME IS NOT BENDING AS THE DIFERENT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE ASAID ILLEGAL UN JUSTIFIED ANDASTITRAY REWEIGHMENT.  28/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 127  TA/612/1990  2030302002 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  5360  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 29-JUN-92 in favour of Party      RESPONDENT ADMITTED THE BOOKING AND THE CONSIGNMENTTHAT MAINTAINED THAT THER WAS NO SHORTAGE AND THE REQUEST FOR RE-WEIGHMENT WAS RIGHTLY REFUSED. THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78B OF THE ACT AND UNDER SECTION 80 CPC WAS ADMITTED THAT VALIDETY AND LEGALITY OF THE SAME WAS DISPUTED,  28/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 128  OA/157/1990  2030302006 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  7792  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 03-JUL-99 in favour of Party      THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION TO CLAIM ANY COMPEANCATION FROM RESPONDENT AS THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERD TO THE CONSIGNER UNDER CLEAR RECIEPT AND SIGNATUR THE CLAIM OF THE APPLICANTS WAS HOWEVER CORRETTLY REPUDIATED ON VALID GROUND. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOODED BY THE SENDER HIMSELF IN HIS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT BEING SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF THER A SAID TO CONTIAN RR WAS ISSUED WICH WAS AECPTED BY THE CONSINE AND FROM PART OF THE CONTRACT RCT DECREED THE CASE ON 27/5/92 FOR RS 6458/ WITHE COST AND INTERST WITH THE FILING ABSERVATION,  29/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 129  OA/231/1990  2030302007 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  18037  NR  HC/CHG      THAT AFTER THE WAGON IS LOODRD BY THE SENDER CT IS WEEGHTED ON THE WEEIGHT BAEDGE PLANTED IN THE PRIVATE SIDING CT SET AND THE RALIWAY RECEIPT WAS PERPARED ACCORDELY THAT OUTWAED LOADED WAGONE AFTER WEEGHMENT INSIDE THE PLANT WE DELAIVRD FOR MORE THAM YO HAVE AND THE WAGON REMAINE UNDER COSTODY OR THE STAFF PLANT CT SELF THERE ARE TO THE RLY  02/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 130  OA/17/1998  2030302026 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  68893  NR  HC/JAI      IT WAS DENIED THAT THERE WAS EITHER ANY SHORTAGE,LEAKAGE OR LOSSEOF THE PRODUCTAS THER WAS NO DELAY IN TRANSIT TO THE CONSIGNMENT. THAT THE LOADING AND SEALING OF TANK WAGON WAS DONE IN THE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT AND THE DIP MEASUREMENT AT DESTINATION WAS ALSO TAKEN WHERETHE TANK WAGON HAS ALREADY PLACED IN THE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT. SINCE THERE WAS NO DELAY TO THE CONSIGNMENT DURING TRANSIT, AS SUCH THEY ARE PROTECTED BY THE PROVISION OF UNDER SECTION 94 OF THE RLY ACT 1989.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 131  TA/1128/1997  2030302091 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  40803  NR  HC/ALD      THE APPLICANT HAS NEITHER PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE MANDATERY REFERENCE HAVING BEEN MADE TO HIGH POWER COMMITTEE/NODAL AUTHORITY NOR FILED THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE AND AS SUCH THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT PROCEED WITH THE CASE IN VIEW OF THE MANDATE OF HONBLE SUPEREME COURT. THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE REMOVED THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE. THE SURVEYOR IS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED SURVEY FOR THE PARTIES OTHER THAN THE INSURANCE COMPANY BY WRITE OF LICENCE GRANTED TO HIM BY COMPROLLES OF INSURANCE. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE CONSIGONER IN ITS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT SUPERVISION OF THE RAILWAY STAFF AS SUCH SAID TO CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CONSIGNOR WITHOUT ANY PROTEST. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER WEIGHMENT THE WAGON REMAIN INSIDE THE PLANT FOR ABOUT 30 HOURS UNDER THE CUSTODY OF STEEL PLANT ITSELF, TILL THE SAME ARE MADEOVER TO THE RAILWAY IN THE YARD FOR BOOKING OF CONSIGNMENT. THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED AT THE DESTINATION NEITHER TRANSIT PERIOD AND THE REQUEST FOR REWEIGHMENT WAS TURNED DOWN CORRECTLY. IT IS DENIED THAT ANY REWEIGHMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PRIVATE SURVEYOR TO THIS EXTENT THAT NO SURVEYOR WAS AVAILBLE. THE ALLEGED REPORT IS FALSE REPORT AND THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS FICTIOUS AND FALSE. SHORTAGE OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DENIED.  02/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 132  TA/1126/1997  2030302323 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  33202  NR  HC/ALD      THE CONSIGHMENT WAS RECIVED WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLER SIGNATUER, THAT THE SURVEYAR WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUET THE ALLEGEDSURVEY, BECAUSECOURPTROLLER OF INSURANCE HAD GRANTED HIM A LICENCE TO SURVEY IN THE MATTER RELATING TO INSURANCE COMPANY ONLY AND THEREFORE , THE SURVEY REPORT IS INADMISIBLE IN EVIDENCE. THE SURVEYOR HAD EXCEEDED HIS JURIDICTION. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AND WEIGHED UPRIDE THE APPLICANT PLAINT AT BHILAI AND AFTER THE WEIGHMENT THE CONSIGNMENT REMOVED INSIDE THE PLANT FOR ABOUT 32-35 HRS. UNDER THE CUSTODY OF THE APPLICANT ITSELF. THAT THE REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE WHEN THE STOCK WAS HANDED OVER TO THE RESPODENT . THE SURVEYOR IS A PRIVATE AND PAID PERSON OF THE APPLICANT, WHO PREPARED A FALSE REPORT TO OBLIGE HIS CUSTOMER. THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED THE DESTINATION WITHOUT EVIDENCE DELAY AND THE RLY. IS PROTECTED U/S93(F) AND94 OF THE RLY. ACT.  10/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 133  TA/1127/1997  2030302324 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  36411  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 08-AUG-05 in favour of Party      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS RECEIVED WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE. THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED SURVEY. THE SURVEY REPORT IS IN ADMINISTRATIVE IN EVIDANCE THAT THE LOADING AND UNLOADING WAS DONE BY THE CONSINOR IN HIS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT SUPERVISION OF THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AND THE PARTICULARS WERE ENTERED IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT SAID TO CONTAIN.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 134  TA/1133/1997  2030302326 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  32841  NR  HC/ALD      THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS RECEIVED WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE. THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED THE SURVEY BECAUSE COMPTROLLER OF INSURANCE HAD GRANTED HIM A LICENCE TO SURVEY IN THE METTER RELATING TO INSURANCE COMPANY ONLY AND THEREFORE THE SURVEY REPORT IS ADMISSIABLE IN EVIDENCE. THE SURVEYER HAD EXCEEDED THE JURIDICTION. THE LOADING AND UNLOADING WAS DONE BY THE CONSIGNOR IN HIS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT SUPERVISION OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE PARTICULARS WERE ENTERED IN THE RR ON SAID TO CONTAIN BASIS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED WEIGHED INSIDE THE APPLICANTS PLANT AT BHILAI AND AFTER THE WEIGHMENT, THE CONSIGNMENT REMAINED INSIDE THE PLANT FOR ABOUT 32-35 HOURS UNDER THE CUSTODY OF THE APPLICANT ITSELF, THAT NO REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE WHERE THE STOCK WAS HANDED OVER TO THE RESPONDENT. THE RAILWAY IS PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 93F AND 94 OF THE RLY. ACT 1989.  11/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 135  TA/1264/1997  2030302425 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  86064  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 07-JUL-05 in favour of Party      IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENTTO ADMISTTTEATED THE BOOKING OF THE CONSIGNMENT MS P GANESAN HAD NO AUTHOURITY TO FILE THE SUIT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 78B WAS NOT LEGAL AND VALID AND NOTICE FOR ENHANCED CLAIM WAS BOOKED BY SECTION 78B OF INDIAN RAILWY ACT , THAT THER WAS NO NEGLIGENC OR MISSCONDUCT OF THE RESPODENT. THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED AT THE DESTINATION STATION FROM THE ORIGINAL WAGON WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENE ENROUTE UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURWITHOUT ANY REMARKS IN THE DELIVERY BOOK.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 136  TA/1130/1997  2030302427 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  39984  NR  HC/ALD      THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS REMOVED WITHOUT ANY PROTEST UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE .THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED SURVEYBECAME CONTROLLER OF INSURENCE HAD GRANTED HIM A LICENSE TO SURVEY IN THE MATTER RELATING TO INSURANCE COMPANY ONLY AND THEREFORE,THE SURVEY REPORT IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. THE SURVEYER HAD EXCEED HIS JURIDICTION. THE LOADING AND UNLOADING WAS DONE BY THE CONSIGNOR IN THIS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUR SUPERVISION OF THE RESPODENTS AND THE PARTICULAR WERE ENTERED TO THE RR IN SAID TO CONTAIN BASIS. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AND WEIGHT INSIDE THE APPLICANTS PLAINT AT BHILAI AND AFTER THE WEIGHMENT. THE CONSIGNMENT REMOVED INSIDE THE PLAINT FOR ABOUT 32 35 HRS. UNDER THE CUSTODY OF THE APPLICANT ITSELF. NO REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE WHEN THE STOCK WAS HANDED OVER TO THE RESPODENT. THE SURVEYOR IS A PRIVATE PERSON OF THE APPLICANT, WHO PREPARED A FALSE REPORT TO OBLIGE THE CUSTOMER . RLY. IS PROTECTED U/S 93(F) AND 94 OF THE RLY. ACT 1989.  21/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 137  TA/1131/1997  2030302428 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  26191  NR  HC/ALD      THE CONSIGHMENT WAS RESIVED WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLEAR SIGNATUR. THE SURVEYAR WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED SURVEY. THE LOODING AND UNLODING WAS DON BY THE CONSIGNOR IN HIS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT SUPERVISION OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE PARTICULERS WER ENTERD IN THE RR ON THE SAID TO CONTAION BASIS. THE COSIGMENT WAS LOODED AND WEIGHED INSIDE THE APPLICANTS PLAINT AT BHILAI AND AFTER THE WEIGHMENT THE CONSIGMENT REMAINED INSIDE THE PLANT FOR ABOUT 32-35 HOURS UNDER THE COSTADY OF THE APPLICANT ITSELF. THE SURVEYOR IS A PRIVATE AND PAIED PESSON OF THE APPLICANT KEKO PERPAIED A FALSE REPORT TO OBLIGE HIS COUSTUMER,  24/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 138  TA/1265/1997  2030302430 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  45313  NR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 07-JUL-05 in favour of Party       IT WAS A WAGON LOAD CONSIGNMENT FROM SIDING TO SIDING OF THE APPLICANT COMPANY AND THEREFORE WHAT AND WHAT WEIGHT WAS LOADED BY THE APPLICANT OR ITS MAN AT ITS SIDING AT DURGAPUR WAS NOT SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF AND THAT ON ITS PLACEMENT AT THE ORIGINATING STATION BY THE APPLICANT SAID TO CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT IS THEREFORE PUT TO STRICT PROOF OF CONTANTS AND WEIGHT OF THE CONSIGNMENT OF THE BOOKING STATION. THE WAGON NO.NR 81635 ARRIVED SAFE INTACT AT THE DESTINATION STATION WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE ENROUTE AND THAT SAME WAS PLACED IN ITS ORIGINAL POSITION OF THE APPLICANT SIDING AT GULDHAR WITHOUT ANY PROTEST OR OTHERWISE OF THE APPLICANT. THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE OR CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE IN DEALING WITH THE CONSIGNMENT ENROUTE AND THAT HAD TAKEN CASE AS APRUDENT MAN TAKES CASE OF HIS OWN GOODS. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS PLACED AT THE APPLICANT SIDING ON 27/06/87 AND AFTER DELIVERY HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT THAT REQUERT FOR REWEIGHMENT WAS MADE WHICH WAS REGHTLY REFREED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE RAILWAY ADMN.  21/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 139  OA/113/1999  2030302682 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  32082  NR  HC/CHG       THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AND SEALED BY THE CONSIGNOR IN ITS PRIVATE SIDING WITHOUT SUPERVISION OF RAILWAY STAFF AND WAS BOOKED AT OWNERS RISK WHICH WAS PLACED FOR DELIVERY ON THE SAME DAY AS SUCH THE RAILWAY PROTECTED FROM ANY KIND OF LIABILTY UNDRE SECTION 97 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989. THE CLAIM APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY DULY AUTHORISED PERSON.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 140  OC/92/2004  2030400192 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  751850  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT DELHI on 17-NOV-14 in favour of Party       AS PER REMARK ON THE ORIGINAL RR CONSIGNMENT IS LOADED AT THE SIDING OF THE PARTY,LOADING, SEALING WAS DONE BY THE PARTY. UNLOADINGWAS NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF THE CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND AS SUCH SAID TO CONTAIN RR ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF SENDER WEIGHT ACCEPTED AND ACCEPTED BY THE PARTY WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION. THE SOUND WAGON WAS PROVIDED BY THE RESPODENT FOR LOADING TO THE APPLICANT AT THEIR SIDING . AS PER REPORT OF THE RPF/DDPC THERE WAS NO LEAKAGE IN THE WAGON. THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON REACHED DESTINATION STATION WITHIN TIME. THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE IF ANY MAY BE DUE TO THE NEGLIGANCE O9F THE APPLICANT WHO HAS TO PROVE THE SEAL OF THE FORWARDING STATION BEFOR THE SAME WERE HANDED OVER TO THE RESPODENT FOR TRANSPORT.RAILWAY ALSO DENIED THAT SEAL WERE TEMPERED DURING THE TRANSIT PERIOD.  20/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 141  OA/1994/1993  2030400205 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  56243  NR  HC/CHG      FFSDFSDF HGJGHJGHHGJHGJHGJHG  20/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 142  TA/853/1997  2030500001 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  68150  NR  HC/ALD      THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN SINHED,VERIFIED AND FILED BY A COMPETENT PERSON, THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS BARRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE RLY ACT. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS INCLUDING SAID TO CONTAIN WITH REGARDS TO QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF MATERIAL LOADED,INCORPORATED ON THE BODY OF THE RR. HANDLING OFFICIAL UNDER TAKEN BY THE CONSIGNER OF THE CONSIGNEE AS STIPULATED BY "L" CONDITION, SENDER DECLARED WEIGHT ACCEPTED FOR FREIGHT.THERE WAS NO NEGLIANCE OR MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE RAILWAY.ADMINISTRATION IN CARRIAGE OF GOODS FROM ORIGINATING POINT TO DESTINATION SIDING.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 143  TA/1274/1997  2030500108 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  30322  NR  HC/ALD      RAILWY ADMISISTRATION ADMITTED THE BOOKING OF THE CONSIGNMENT THAT MR P GANESHAN HAD NO AUTHORITY TO FIL THE SUT THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO RE-WEEGHMENT THE CONSIGNMENT THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT INDEPENDENT AND WAS ENGAGED OF THE APPLICANT.  24/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 144  OA/22/2005  2030500170 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  291373  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH on 04-FEB-15 in favour of Party      THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE CLAIMANT CORPORATION HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED IN THE CONCILIATION PROCEEDING BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF CLAIMANT CORPORATION AND RAILWAY AUTHORITIES . IN VIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE THE CLAIMANT CORPORATION AND THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES BUT THE CLAIMANT CORPORATION IS STILL INSISTING FOR THE CLAIMENT CORPORATION AND THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES BUT THE CLAIMANT CORPORATION IS STILL INSISTING FOR THE CONTINUES OF THE PRESENT CLAIM PETETION ,THUS THE CLAIMANT CORPORATION BE DECIED TOFILE AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS REGARD.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 145  OA/350/1993  2030600037 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  341178  NR  HC/DLI       THAT THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF EXPIRY OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED ON 29/06/85 AND THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING THE SUIT APPLICATION WAS UPTO 28/8/88 I.E. WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS OF NOTICE AND ACCORDING TO SEC. 17 OF RCT ACT. WITHIN 3 YEARS OF BOOKING, WHEREAS THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED ON 9/11/93I.E. AFTER EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF ALMOST 5 YEARS, SO THE APPLICATION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND IN LIABLE TO BEREJECTED. FURTHER IT WAS STATEDTHAT AFTER EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION THE APPLICANT APPROACHED TO THE RAILWAY BD. TO RECOSIDER THE CASE AND THE RLY. BD. ADVISED THE OFFICE TO RECONSIDER ALL THE CASES OF THE APPLICANT BEING A GOVT.BODY. TWO SUCH CASES WERE CONSIDERED AND WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE OF STAFF AS PER ENQUIRY COMMTEE, THEREFORE ONLY 50/ OF THE CLAIM BE ALLOWED.A CHEQUE FOR THE 50% AMOUNTI.E.FOR353221/- WAS SENT IN FULL& FINAL SETTLEMENT ON 28/01/92 TO THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT HAS ENCASHED THE CHEQUE, THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT CANNOT CLAIM ANY FURTHER AMOUNT AS PER LAW.  25/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 146  TA/1097/1997  2030600275 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  60307  NR  HC/ALD      THAT THE CONSIGMENT WAS LOODED AT A PRIVATE SIDING OF THE APPLICANT WAS NOT SUPERVISER BY THE RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGMENT AS HAD BEEN ENTRSTED TO THE RAILWAY ADMN BY HTHE APPLICANT HAD BEEN PLACED AT THE APPLICANT SIDING AT GULDHAR. WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION PROV TO IT HENCE IS RAILWAY IS NOT RESPONSBLE ON LOID DOWNIN SEC 94[2] OF THE RAILWAY ACT 1989,  25/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 147  OA/39/2006  2030600392 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  447564  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH on 04-FEB-15 in favour of Party      NO NOTICE U/S 106 OF THE RLY ACT WAS SERVED UPON RESPONDENT ,ALLEGED CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED ON THE BASES OF SAID TO CONTAIN LDO AS PER FORWARDING NOTE, CONTENTS LOADING WAS NEITHER CHECKED NOR SUPERVISED OF RLY. STAFF IN ALLEGED WAGON.RAILWAY WERE PROCTED U/S 65 OF RLY. ACT.CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AT OWNER RISK. RAILWAY WAS PROTECTED U/S 97 OF THE RLY. ACT.  20/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 148  OA/10/2007  2030600497 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  38954  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 21-NOV-07 in favour of Party      THE SUIT HAD BEEN FILED ON 27/11/06 WHICH HAS BECOME SUIT BAR. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY INCURRED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS & NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAD ALSO BEEN SHOWN IN THE PRAYER APPLICATION BEFORE RCT/LKO HENCE APPLICATION FOR DELAY CONDONATION IS REJECTED BY RCT/LKO ON 21/11/07.  29/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 149  OA/8/2007  2030600498 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  21572  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 19-AUG-13 in favour of Party      THE SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT/LKO ON 27/11/06 I.E. AFTER FOUR YEAR AND SIX MONTH WHICH HAS BECOME SUIT BARRED. M/S IBP HAS DELAY CONDONATION PETION IN RCT WHICH IS STILL PENDING. CLAIM WAS REPUDITED AT CLAIM STAGE UNDER SECTION 94 OF RA 1989. AS SUCH RAILWA IS NOT LIABLE.  03/Oct/2011  No  No  No  No
 150  OC/9/2007  2030600500 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  48160  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 21-NOV-07 in favour of Party      THE SUIT HAD BEEN FILED ON 16/11/06 WHICH HAS BECOME SUIT BAR. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY INCURRED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS & NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAD ALSO BEEN SHOWN IN THE PRAYER APPLICATION BEFORE HON;BLE RCT/LKO HENCE APPLICATION FOR DELAY CONDONATION IS REJECTED BY HON,BLE RCT/LKO ON 21/11/07.CONSEQUENTLY, APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION IS ALSO REJECTEDAS BEIING TIME BARRED.  29/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 151  OA/22/2007  2030700038 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  610865  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH on 04-FEB-15 in favour of Party       NO VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT WAS SERVED TO RAILWAY RESPODENT. PRESENT CLAIM APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED THROUGH A DULY AUTHORISED PERSON. THAT THE RR. STATES THAT THE ALLEGED CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED ON THE BASIS OF SAID TO CONTAIN FIRANE OIL AS PER FORWARDING NOTE AND SINCE THE CONTENS AND LOADING WAS NEITHER CHECKED NORSUPERVISED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF IN THE ALLEGED WAGON LOAD. IT IS ALSO DENIED THAT THE ALLEGED WAGON CONTAIN 43770 LITERS OF FORENANCE OIL AS ALLEGED AND FURTHER THAT THE RATE OF THE ALLEGED FURNACE OIL WAS RS.13956.27 P C L.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 152  OA/12/2005  2030700209 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  378830  NR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH on 04-FEB-15 in favour of Party      1. THE RAILWAY IS NOT LIABLE U/S 80. THE CONSIGINOR LOADED THE ARTICLE UNDER THEIR OWN SUPREVISION AND THE RAILWAY WAS NOT WITNESS, THE RAILWAY IS PROTECTED U/S 65 OF RAILWAY ACT THE RAILWAY WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF LOADING. 2. THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS NOT FILED, SIGNED AND VERIFED BY DULY AUTHORISED PERSON. 3. THE RAILWAY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AS PER SECTION 72 OF THE INDIAN RAILWAY ACT AND SECTION 151,152 AND162 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT.  08/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 153  OC/108/2000  2030700278 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  6114464  NR  RCT/LKO      ALL THE WAGON WITH MET WITH FIRE ACCIDANT AT AO SECTION 17/02/01.THE FIRE ACCIDANT ENQUIRY COMMITTEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE FAILURE OF RLY STAFF.AS SUCH RLY IS UNDER PROCEDING TO SETTLE THE CASE OUT OF COURT.  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 154  OA/190/2000  2030700282 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  94003  NR  RCT/LKO      THE DEMAND FOR JOINT DIP MRASUREMENT FOR THE ALLIEGED WAGON WAS NO ACCEPTED BECAUSE,THE UPPER AND BOTTOM SEAL WERE INTACT. THERE WAS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE. THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED BY IOCL TO SELF AND THE IOCL TOOK DELIVERY ON THIER OWN BEHALF AT DESTIN ATION AS SUCH APPLICANT HAS NO RIGHT, TITLEOR INTEREST TO MAIN TAIN APPLICATION. THE APPLICATION IS HIT BY SECTION 74 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.  29/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 155  OA/7/2008  2030700334 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  110022  NR  RCT/CDG      THE TANK WAGON NR95206 WAS TRANSHIPED IN TO NR 90530 AT HALDIA DUE TO CERTAIN DEFECTIN THE SAID TANK WAGON .THE TANK WAGON NO 90530 WAS PLACED FOR UNLOADING ON 9.4.05 AT AMBALA CANTT AND AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE .THREE BOTTOM SEALS WERE IN OK CONDITION .THE CONDITION OF BOTTOM FLANGE OK DIP WAS FOUND 241CM WHICH WAS SAME AS MEASURED AT THE TIME OF TRANSHIPMENT .NEITHER LOADING NOR MEASUREMENT WAS WITNESSED BY THE RLY ADMN WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE REMARKS ON THE RR WHICH ARE TO THE EFFECT .THAT LOADING DIPMASURMENT NOT WITNESSED BY CPT STAFF.  26/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 156  OA/8/2008  2030700339 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  170393  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 31-OCT-12 in favour of Party      NEITHER LOADING NOR MEASURMENT WAS WITNESSED BY THE RLY ADMN. WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE REMARKS ON THE RR WHICH ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT LOADING DIP MEASURMENT NOT WITNESSED BY CPT STAFF. IT OS NOT CASE OF SHORT DELIVERY BUT SHORT LOADING BY THE APPLICANT AT ITS SIDING AND AS SUCH NO COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE BY THE RLY ADMN . THAT WHATEVER QUANTITY OF M.S WAS LOADED BY THE COMPANY (LOADING ,DIPMEASURMENT,SEALING NOT WITNESSED BY THE RLY STAFF AT THE FORWARDING STATION)WAS DELIVERED AT THE DESTINATION AND THE CLAIMOF THE APPLICANT WAS RIGHTLY REPUDIATED BEING NOR TENABLE.  26/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 157  OA/4/2009  2030900021 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  1019849  NR  RCT/LKO      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED/FILLED BYTHE OWNER AT THEIR PVT SDG..NEITHER LOADING WASSUPERVISED NOR DIP WAS VERIFIED BY THE RLY STAFF AT FORWARDING STATION.THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED DESTONATION ON 10/02/08 WITHOUT ANY ENTERFERENCE ENROUT AND PLACED AT THE SDG TOP AND BOTTOM VOLVE WERE INTACT, MAIN HOLE COVER WAS CLOSED.NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE . RLY ADMIN IS NOT LIABLE U/S 94/2.  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 158  OA/5/2009  2030900022 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  417560  NR  RCT/LKO      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE CONSIGNOR AT THEIR PVT SDG.LOADIND WASNOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF.NO DIP WAS VERIFIED BY THE RLYSTAFF AT FORWARDING STATION. THE CONSIGNMENTREACHED DESTONATION ON26/02/08WITHIH NORMAL TRANSIT TIME AND PLACED AT THEIR SDG. RLY ADMIN IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANYSHORTAGE U/S94/2 OF RLY ACT 1989.  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 159  OA/6/2009  2030900023 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  2168114  NR  RCT/LKO      LOADINDAND UNLOADING WEREDONE BYTHE OWNER ATTHEIRPRIVATE SDG.ANDTHE SAMEWAS NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RLY STAFF.THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED DESTONATION ON 4/2/08AND PLACED AT THE SDG,OF CONSGNEE AND DELIVERED.THE WAS NO ANY SIGN OF ENTERFERENCE ENROUTE,NOANY MAJOR SIGN OF LEAKAGE AT DESTONATION. RLY ADMIN IS NOT LIABLE U/S 94/2 OF RLY ACT 1989.THER WAS ALSONO ANY DEFECT IN TWS.  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 160  OA/7/2009  2030900024 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  165452  NR  RCT/LKO      LOADING AND UNLOADING WERE DOND BY THE THE OWNER AT THEIR PVT,SDG. AND THE SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF.DIPNOT VERIFIED BY RLY STAFF AT FORWARDING STATION. THE CONSINGMENT REACHED DESTONATION ON 26/02/08AND PLACED AT THEIR SDG.NO LEAKAGE NO MECHENICAL DEFECT NOTICED. RLY ADMIN IS NOT LIABLE U/S94/2OF RLY ACT.  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 161  OA/1/2009  2030900160 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  147315  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 27-NOV-13 in favour of Party      THE CLAIM APPLICATION ARE WRONG FALSE AND HENCE DENIED THE CLAIM APPLICATION HAVE NO MERIT AND AS SUCH THE FACTS ARE WRONG AND DENIED .THERE ISNO QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT RAILWAY. THE LOSS IF ANY SUFFERED BY THE APPLICANT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE RESPONDENT AS ALLEGED BUT DUE TO THE NEGLIGENT ACT OF THE APPLICANT ITSELF .THE RAILWAYS ARE NOT LIABLE TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE APPLICANT .  31/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 162  OA/10/2009  2030900266 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  385307  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 15-SEP-16 in favour of Party       THE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED AS PER RLY. BD. LETTER NO 86/TC-111/56/2 DATED 24/12/90 PARA 4(A) THE TANK WAGON ARRIVED AT DESTINATION ON 18/03/08 WITH TOP & BOTTOM SEAL MISSING, TOP & BOTTOM VALUE INTACT AND MANHOLE COVER.CLORED OF EACH WAGON WITH NUT & BOLT AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF LEAKAGE.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 163  OA/213/1998  2030900279 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  145582  NR  HC/CHG      THE BOOKING PARTICULARS WERE ADMITTED AND ANYTHING CONTRARY THEIRTO WERE DENIED . THE TANK WAGON NO. SE 77150 BECAME SICK AND WAS PLACED WITH THE APPLICASNT DEPOT AT MEERUT FOR TRANSHIPMENT.THE TRANSHIPMENT WAS DONE BY THE APPLICANT MEERUT OFFICE IN THE PRESENCE OF RLY. OFFICIALS. IT WAS DENIED THAT TRANSHIPMENT WAS DONE BY THE RESPONDENT. THE T/MENT WAGON REACHED AT DESTINATION AND WAS DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE RESPONDENT IS NOT A PARTY TO ANY DOWN GRADING DONE BY THE APPLICANT AND APPLICANT ITSELF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT COMPLING WITH ITS OWN RULES.  07/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 164  OC/3/2007  2030900283 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  276019  NR  RCT/LKO      THE SAID WAGON RECEIVED AT DESTONATION DATED08/04/05 WITHOUT LOADING ANY TIME INTRANSIT.THERE IS ONLY TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL MISSING WHILE THE TOP AND BOTTOM VOLVE AND NUTSAND BOTH WERE FOUND INTACT AS SUCH RLY IS NOT LIABLE U/S 94 /2 RLY ACT1989.THERE IS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE AT DESTONATION.  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 165  OA/637/1991  2030900284 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  29938  NR  HC/CHG      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED SAID TO CONTAIN AND REMARKS "SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED" HENCE QUANTITY IN THE EACH TANK WAGON IS NOT ADMITTED,THE TANK WAGON NO ER 35223 REMA INED IN THE APPLICANTS SIDING FOR THE SUFFICIENTLY LONG TIME,THUS,THE APPLICANT COULD HAVE REMOVE.THE CONTENTS WERE IN THE TANK WAGON AND EVEN OTHERWISE,NO JOINT DIP WAS TAKEN.  06/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 166  OC/66/2005  2030900289 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  370330  NR  RCT/LKO      LOADING AND UNLOADING WAS DONE BY OWNEROF THEGOODS AT THEIR PVT SDG.NEITHER LOADIND WAS SUPERVISED NORDIP WAS VERIFIED BY RLY STAFF AT FORWARDING STATION.THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED DESTONATION ON29/02/04 WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIMEAND PLACED AT THEIR SDG. AND DELIVERED.THE TOP SEAL WERE INTACT. RLY ADMIN. IS NOT LIABLE U/S 94/2 OF THR RLY ACT  25/Mar/2011  No  No  No  No
 167  OA/124/1999  2030900293 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  31495  NR  HC/JAI       CIVIL MISS. APPLICATION BE TREATED AS WRITTENSTSTEMENT IN THIS CASE.NOT DENIED THE BOOKING OF TANK WAGON. THE CLAIM APPLICATIONWAS FILED BEYONDS LIMITATION AND THE TANK WAGON DID NOT CONTAIN THE LESS QUANTITY HSD AS ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANTS. THE BOOKED CONTENTS WERE TRANSHIPPED BY THE APPLICANTS IN THEIR OWN SIDING AT THE ORIGINATING STATE ITSELF FROM TANK WAGON NOWR48421 TO TANK WAGONNO NF 6252.  20/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 168  OC/575/1997  2030900309 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  18418  NR  RCT/LKO      LOADING AND UNLOADINGIS DONE BY OWENER AT THIER PRIVATE SIDING AND SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY. WHATSOEVER LOADED IN WHATSOEVER CONDITION AT FORWARDING THE SAME WAS BOUGHT AT DESTINATION AND DELIVERED TO THE PARTY. THERE IS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE FROM THE TANK WAGON. AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE.  29/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 169  TA/855/1997  2031000001 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  10477  NR  HC/ALD      THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE WERE CHALLANGED, THE APPLICANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID GOODS. THE TANK WAGON IN DISPUTE REACHED D/STN. WITH ALL FITTINGS AND PACKING INTACT. THE MISSING OF TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS DOES NOT ENTITLE THE APPLICNT IN CLAIM. THE C/MENT WAS BOOKED ON SAID TO CONTAIN BASISS AND UNDER OWNER RISKS.  16/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 170  TA/857/1997  2031000002 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  81587  NR  HC/ALD      1.THAT NO STATUTORY NOTICE WAS SERVED THE RESPONDENT. 2.THE LOADING OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RLY. STAFF. 3.THE GOODS CONSIGNED WERE DELIVERED IN THE SAME ORIGINAL CONDITION. 4.THE DIP ASSESSMENT AND SEALING OF THE TANK WAGON WAS DONE BY THE CONSIGNOR AT THE ORIGINATING STATION AND THE RLY. STAFF WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT TIME.  08/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 171  TA/832/1997  2031000005 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  0  NR  HC/ALD      THAT THE RESPONDENT IS PROTECTED U/S 93 OF THE RAILWAY ACT, SAID TO CONTAIN RR , LOADING IN IOC SIDING, LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY THE RLY. STAFF.  15/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 172  OA/66/2004  2031000007 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  303493  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 09-FEB-17 in favour of Party       THE APPLICATION IS NOT SIGNED VERIFED AND INSTITCTED BY A PROPER AUTHORISED PERSON. THE CLAIM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THE RAILWAY ADMINISTER IS PROTECTED U/S93(I),97, 102(C)(I) OF RLY. ACT. THE TANK WAGON IN QUESTION WAS LOADED IN PRIVATE SIDING BY THE CONSIGNOR HIMSELF AND THE LOADING DIPING AND SEALING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF HENCE A SAID TO CONTAIN SECOND RR FOR SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED AS PER FORWARD NOTE WAS ISSUED. THE SAID TANK WAGON AS LOADED ABOVE REACHED DESTINATION WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE ENROUT AND UNLOADED BY THE CONSIGNEE HIMSELF IN ITS OWN SIDING WITHOUT SUPERVISION BY RLY. STAFF.  10/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 173  TA/483/1990  2031000013 INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LTD  74432  NR  HC/CHG      RESPONDENT RAILWAY DENIED LIABILITY ON THE GROUND THAT DILIVEREY WAS EFFECTED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND SIGNATURE AND NO NOTICE U/S80/CPC SERVED, SERVICES OF NOTICE U/S 78/B OF INDIAN RLY. ACT IS ADMITTED.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 174  MA/25/2010  2031000054 INDIANOIL CORP. LTD.,  2552638  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 30-NOV-15 in favour of Party      66 TANK WAGON CONTAINING LUB OIL WERE LOADEDAT HALDIA IOC SIDING AND DISPATCH BY HDCB/AST LOAD ON 30.12.2006 DUE TO HOT AXLE. T/W NO E61260 AND SR 37423 WERE DETACHED AT CHOPAN STATION OVER E.C. RLY ON 05.1.07 THE SICK TANK WAGON WERE ATTENDED BY TXR ON 07.1.07 AND AFTER DECLARING FIT WERE MIS-DISPATCHED FROM CHOPAN ON 01.2.07 BY PLP/SPL LOAD WICH ARRIVEDAT IFFCO PHULPUR SIDING ON 03.2.07 THE WAGONS WERE DECANTED BY IFFCO PHULPUR AS FO INSTEAD OF LUB-OIL.  07/Feb/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 175  OA/8/2010  2031000055 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  1056371  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 27-OCT-16 in favour of Party       M/S HPC LTD.HAD GIVEN A CLAIM NOTICE ON 18/10/07, WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE ON 19/10/07. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED AT CLAIM STAGE AND THE LOSS WAS VERIFIED FOR RS.10,34,923/-AS PER RATES OF CALIBRATION CHART. THE FILE WAS SENT TO ACCOUNT FOR VETTING OF THE AMOUNT, BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DONE AND CLAIM COULD NOT BE SETTLED. HENCE THE PRESENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE HPC IN RCT/DLI FOR RECOVERY OF LOSS.  21/Dec/2010  No  No  No  No
 176  OA/11/2010  2031000071 BHARATPETROLEUM CORPORATIONLIMITED  67330  NR  Case Settled by RCT LUCKNOW on 15-DEC-11 in favour of Party      1-WAGON REACHED ON 12/07/08 WITHOUT DELAY IN ROUT.TOP AND BOTTOM VALVE FOUND INTACT. 2-JOINT DIP CERTIFICATE SIGN JOINTLY THAT RAILWAY IS NOT LAIBLE UNDER SEC 94 (II) OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.  03/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 177  OA/24/1999  2031000092 MS SAIL  59641  NR  HC/CHG      THE CLAIM APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED VERIFIED AND FILED THOURGH COMPETENT AND AUOTHRISED PERSON THE APPLICANT REPRSENTATINE REMOVED THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLEAR SINGATURES THE SURVERYER WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE ALLEGED SURVEY FOR THE PARTEIES OTHER THEN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BY VERTVE FO LICENCE GARANTED TO HIM BY THE COMPTROLLER OF INSURANCE AND ASSUCH THE REPORTS OF THE SURVEYAR LIABLE TO BE REJECTE,  02/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 178  OA/25/1999  2031000093 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA TLD  18959  NR  HC/CHG      THE CLAIM APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED VERIFIED ADN FILED THOURGH COMOETENT AND AUTHORISED PERSON THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTIONRECIVED THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLER SIGNATUR THE SURVEARYOR WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUCT SURVERYAR FOR THE PARTIES ATHOUR THAN THE INSURANCE COMPNIES BY VERTVE OF LICENCE GRANTED TO HIM BY THE CONPTROLLER OF INSURANCE AND AS SUCH THE REPORT OF SURVEYAR LIBLE TO THE REJECTED.  01/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 179  OA/12/2010  2031000097 BHARAT PETROLIUM CORPORATION LTD.  499215  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 21-MAY-15 in favour of Party      THE CLAIM OF FIVE TANK WAGONS HAS REPUDIATED ON THE PLEA THAT THE ABOVE FIVE WAGON WERE PLACED IN THE BPCL SIDING ON 3.3.08 THAT THE TOP SEAL INTACT BOTTOM SEAL MISSING,TOP AND BOTTOM VALVE INTACT NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE.  30/Jan/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 180  OA/11/2010  2031000098 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP. LTD.,  1018112  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 19-OCT-10 in favour of Party      RAILWAY IS NOT LIABLE FOR THIS SHORTAGE AS PER RLY BOARD LATTER NO.86/TC-III/56/2 DATED 24.12.90 PARA4(A) PLACED AT SN-18 WHAN BOTH SEALS OF THE TANK WAGON TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS OF TANK WAGON ARA FOUND MISSING BUT THER IS NO SING. OF LEAKAGE AND MAIN HOLE IS FOUND DULY CLOSED WITH NUT AND BOLTS EVDENTLY IN SUCH CASES THE CLAIM WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE.  25/Jan/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 181  OA/13/2010  2031000099 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP. LTD.,  134971  NR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 15-SEP-16 in favour of Party      THE TANK WAGON ARRIVED AT DESTINATION ON 22.9.08 AND PLACED AT BPCL SDG. THE T/WNO. WR 907169 PLACED WITH 4 BOTTOM SEALS INTACT, 4 BOTTOM VALVE INTACT, TOP SEALS ONE INTACT AND BOTTOM ONE SEALS MISSING, MAIN HOLE WAS OPEN AND NO SIGN. OF LEAKAGE, BUT SHORTAGE WAS FOUND 63918 LITRES AGAINST 67200 LITRES MS. SHORTAGE OF3282 LITRES. THE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED WITH OBSERVATION THAT THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE ATTRIBUTED TO SHORT LOADING AT FORWARDING STATION.  25/Jan/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 182  OA/34/1999  2031000100 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED  13378  NR  Case Settled by RCT CHANDIGARH on 05-DEC-00 in favour of Party      THE CLAIMS APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED VERIFIED AND FILED THROUGH COMPETENT AND AUTHOEISED PERSON THE APPLICANT RESENTATINE REMOVED THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT ANY PROTEST AND UNDER CLER SIGNATURE THE SURVEYER WAS NOT COMPETENT TO CONDUT THE ALLEGED SURVY FOR THE PARTIES OTHER THAN INCURANCE COMPARIES BY VERTUR OF LICENCE GRANTED TO HIM BY THE UMPTROLLER OF IN SURANCE AND AS SUCH THE REPORT OF SURVEYARS LIABLE TO THE REJECTED.  10/Nov/2010  No  No  No  No
 183  OA/429/1995  2031100098 RINL  105096  NR  HC/CHG      AMOUNT OF RS.77643/- HAS BEEN PAID TO THE PARTY M/S RINL VIDE CHEQUE NOP. 693570 DATED 9/7/99 APPEAL IS PENDING AND NO STAY GRANTED.  13/Jan/2012  Yes  Yes  Yes  No
 184  OA/288/2002  2040200012 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  47586  NE  RCT/GKP      NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE, ALTHOUGH TOP/BOTTOM SEAL WAS MISSING. THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE SURRENDERED THE ORR WHICH WAS NOT DONE. PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 185  OA/350/2002  2040200020 null  6924970  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 14-FEB-17 in favour of Party      THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED FOR WAGON NO.WR956510. THIS WAGON WAS NOT BOOK UNDER THE RR IN QUESTION. PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 186  MISC/101/2003  2040300002 null  276221  NE  RCT/GKP      CONSIGNMENT DELIVER IN CLEAR RECIPT.PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  19/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 187  MISC/111/2003  2040300003 null  475888  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 06-OCT-15 in favour of Party      THE CASE IS SUITBARRED. WAGON IN QUESTION BELONGS WITH HPCL. THE WAGON SAME WAS DECANTED BY IOC. BOTH THE COMPANIES ADJUST THE CASE AND THE CASE SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 188  MISC/112/2003  2040300005 null  276265  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 09-JUL-15 in favour of Party      SUIT BARRED CASE. WAGON OF HPC DECANTED BY LOCO FOREMAN/GORAKHPUR ON 28.4.1993 IN TERMS OF DUES RUNNING AGAINST BHARAT PETROLEUM. HPC AND BPCL WERE ASKED FOR ADJUSTMENT. PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 189  OA/407/2002  2040300196 null  979287  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 15-FEB-17 in favour of Party      THERE IS NO TEMPERING IN THE MAIN VALVE. RLY IS NOT LIABLE. PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  20/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 190  OA/465/2002  2040300197 null  821527  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 09-DEC-11 in favour of Party      CONSIGNMENT OF HSD WAS DECANTED BY LOCO FOREMAN/GONDA. PURCHASE ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 30.7.2004. PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 191  OA/201/2003  2040300210 null  393151  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 01-AUG-12 in favour of Party      MATERIAL DECANTED BY RAILWAY. PAYMENT OF RS 1,44,250/- WAS RECEIVED BY IOC. IOC TO WITHDRAW THE CASE.  20/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 192  OA/1178/1997  2040300225 null  163094  NE  RCT/GKP      APPLICANT HAS DECIDED TO WITHDRAW THE CASE AND INFORMED HIS COUNSEL TO DO SO.  20/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 193  OA/970/1999  2040300231 null  195022  NE  RCT/GKP      SUPPLY ORDER ISSUED AND PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY IOC TO WITHDRAW THE CASE.  20/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 194  OA/339/2001  2040300233 null  313430  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 29-SEP-16 in favour of Party      BOTH SEAL INTACT. ONE SIDE SEAL MISSING. LEAKAGE FROM BOTTOM VALVE WHICH WAS OPEN. RAILWAY IS NOT LIABLE FOR SHORTAGE. IOC TO WITHDRAW THE CASE.  20/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 195  MISC/305/2001  2040300234 null  139821  NE  RCT/GKP      THE WAGON NO.CR 489484 BELONG TO HPC. THE WAGON WAS DECANTED BY IOC ON 10.5.1993. BOTH THE COMPANY SHOULD TALK TOGETHER AND THE APPLICANT WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 196  OA/295/2003  2040300236 null  140906  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 14-NOV-13 in favour of Party      TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL INTACT. LEAKAGE FROM BOTTOM VALVE. RAILWAY IS NOT LIABLE AS PER RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR. IOC WITH DRAW THE CASE.  20/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 197  OA/338/2001  2040300241 null  235799  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 26-APR-16 in favour of Party      NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE. SEAL WAS ALSO IN SOUND CONDITION. PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 198  OA/612/2001  2040300242 null  129419  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 14-FEB-13 in favour of Party      TOP AND BOTTOM BOTH SEAL MISSING, LEAKAGE NOTICED. RAILWAY IS RESPONSIBLE.  20/Aug/2011  No  No  No  No
 199  OA/467/2002  2040300252 null  149128  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 05-OCT-16 in favour of Party      SEAL WAS MISSING. SIGN OF LEAKAGE WAS FOUND. RAILWAY IS LIABLE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 200  MISC/234/1998  2040300308 null  158143  NE  RCT/GKP      SUIT BARRED CASE. TANK WAGON NUMBER ER96167 DELIVERED TO THE PARTY UNDER CR. PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 201  MISC/142/2002  2040300321 null  609470  NE  Case Settled by RCT GORAKHPUR on 08-JAN-14 in favour of Party      SUIT BARRED CASE. DUES OF RAILWAYS LYING AGAINST PARTY. AGAINST THE ABOVE DUES RAILWAY HAS DECANTED THE CONSIGNMENT OF HPCL.PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 202  OA/674/2001  2040300328 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  242440  NE  RCT/GKP      NO REMARK OF LEAKAGE. TOP SEAL INTACT. VOLVE WAS ALSO PROPER. RAILWAY IS NOT LIABLE FOR SHORTAGE. PARTY SHULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 203  MISC/233/1998  2040300333 null  150235  NE  RCT/GKP      PARTY HAS TAKEN DELIVERY UNDER CR. AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT LIABLE. PARTY SHOULD WITHDRAW THE CASE.  02/Nov/2011  No  No  No  No
 204  OC/868/2003  2050300220 BHARAT PETROLEUM CO. LTD  212879  NF  Case Settled by RCT CALCUTTA on 06-MAY-09 in favour of Party      (1)THE THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED BY THE SENDER AT THE FORWARDING STATION WITH REMARKS "SAID TO CONTAIN" SKO. AS PER F/NOTE. DIP ROD MEASUREMENT TAKEN BY IOC STAFF, NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF. AS SUCH, RAILWAY IS NOT LIABLE . (2) THE THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON HOLDING THE SUBJECT CONSIGNMENT REACHED NJP YARD FROM IOC SIDING, NJP AND BECAME MECHAICALLY DEFECTIVE. THEREFORE, IT HAD TO BE TRANSSHIPPED AT NJP YARD INTO ANOTHER TANK WAGON IN PRESENCE OF IOC STAFF FROM ORIGINAL IOC SEAL INTACT WAGON. AS SUCH, THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY IS NOT ALL LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR ANY SHORTAGE IN SEAL INTACT WAGON.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 205  OC/159/2005  2050500048 M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,  18765  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 12-FEB-08 in favour of Party      THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE CASE AS THE APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THE CASE FROM RCT UNCONDITIONALLY .  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 206  OA/454/2005  2050500096 SR. TERMINAL MANAGER  410172  NF  RCT/CCC       THE SUBJECT WAGON NO. CRTP-45961 WAS FOUND TO BE MECHANICALLY DEFECTIVE AND MARKED SICK BY TXR DEPT. AT FORWARDING STATION HALDIA, THE CONTENTS HAD TO BE TRANSSHIPPED INTO ANOTHER WAGON NO. NETP- 474 AND THE SAID TRANSSHIPPED WAGON REACHED DESTINATION ON 7.2.2006 AT 11.30 HRS AND DELIVERY WAS EFFECTED BY THE CONSIGNEE ON THE SAME DAY. HENCE THE CLAIM FOR NON DELIVERY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. AS SUCH ALLEGED NON-DELIVERY OF SUBJECT WAGON IS NOT ADMITTED AND THE APPLICATION IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NO CLAIM AT ALL.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 207  OC/53/2007  2050700851 M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.  10782974  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 21-NOV-08 in favour of Party      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED ON 15.7.1991. BUT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED ON 10.7.2007 AND EASTERN RLY AND N.F. RLY. HAVE BEEN IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT NO.- 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY. (I.E. AFTER 15 YEARS 11 MONTHS 25 DAYS) SECONDLY RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE UNDER SECTION 93 (C) & (I) OF RAILWAY ACT.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 208  OC/1364/2007  2050800001 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  211735  NF  RCT/GHY      SINCE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 74973/- HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST RLY¿S DUES VIDE LETTER DT. 6.6.2007, AS SUCH THE APPLICATION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AGAINST INVOICE NO.- 277. AND UNDER INVOICE NO. 303 THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AT IOCL SIDING, LOADING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF AND WAGON SEALING & DIP MEASUREMENT WERE ALSO DONE BY SENDER MOREOVER, AT TRANSSHIPMENT POINT & AT DESTINATION STATION WAGONS WERE FOUND SEAL INTACT BOTH TOP & BOTTOM. AS SUCH RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY COMPENSATION .  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 209  OC/163/2007  2050800002 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  201000  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      SUBJECT CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AT IOCL SIDING, LOADING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY. STAFF, WAGON WAS SEALED AND DIP MEASUREMENT ALSO TAKEN BY SENDER. MOREOVER AT TRANSSHIPMENT POINT AND AS WELL AS AT DESTINATION POINT THE WAGONS WERE FOUND SEAL INTACT BOTH TOP & BOTTOM. AS SUCH RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY SHORTAGE/COMPENSATION.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 210  OC/1362/2007  2050800003 SR. MANAGER  871223  NF  RCT/GHY      T/WAGONS WERE NOT SUPERVISED BY RLY STAFF AT FORWARDING STATION AS THE WAGONS WERE SELECTED AND CHECKED BY SENDER AS SUCH THE QUESTION OF SHORTAGE DOES NOT ARISE. AS SUCH RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY COMPENSATION .  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 211  OC/2/2008  2050800029 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1862182  NF  RCT/GHY      THE ALLEGED T/WAGONS (1) NFBTP-5903 & (2) NFBTP-5202 WERE INTERCEPTED BY SSE (LOCO)/ LMG ON 10.11.01-35090 LTRS & 38690 LTRS RESPECTIVELY (I.E. TOTAL- 73780 LTRS) HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT SERVED NOTICE ON 8.1.2008 AND THE APPLICATION WAS ALSO FILED ON 21.1.2008. I.E. AFTER EXPIRY OF 3 YRS.2MONTH 12 DAYS. AS SUCH THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED WITH COST  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 212  OC/3/2008  2050800032 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  56633  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE THERE IS A DELAY OF 1YEAR AND 80 DAYS IN FILING THE CLAIM APLICATION. NO REASONABLE GROUNDS ARE ADDUCED . IT APPEARED FROM RECORDS THAT THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON WAS RECEIVED AT THE DESTINATION STATION IN TOP SEAL INTACT CONDITION .THE ENTIRE OPERATION OF LOADING AND DECANTING AT DESTINATION WERE DONE BY IOC  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 213  OC/4/2008  2050800036 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  15851  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      THE TANK WAGON LOADED FROM FORWARDING STATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSHIPPED DUE TO SOME MECHANICAL DEFECTS DETECTED IN THE ORIGINAL WAGON . SUBSEQUENTLY , THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID DEFECTIVEWAGON WAS TRANSHIPPED& UNLOADED AT DESTINATION STATION .ALL THESE OPERATIONS WERE DONE JOINTLY BY THE RAILWAY STAFF AND IOC STAFF AND WAGON WERE FOUND SEAL INTACT. HENCE THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR SHORTAGE OF SKO AND THUS THE RAILWAY IS NO WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH SHORTAGE.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 214  OC/5/2008  2050800037 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  18917  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party       IN THIS CASE THERE IS A DELAY OF 06 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS IN FILING THE CLAIM APPLICATION . NO REASONABLE GROUND ADDUCED . FURTHERMORE , CONCERNED WAGONS TOP SEAL WAS INTACT. HENCE, THE CLAIM REPUDIATED .  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 215  OC/6/2008  2050800038 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1117921  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-NOV-10 in favour of Party      THE ALLEGED T/WAGONS WAS DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT UNDER QUALIFIED REMARKS AS SUCH RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY COMPENSATION. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM APPLICATION. AS SUCH RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY COMPENSATION.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 216  OC/9/2008  2050800040 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR  69921  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      THERE IS A DELAY OF 22 MONTHS AND 20DAYS HAS OCCURRED IN THIS CASE AND THE APPLICANT DIDN¿T PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE REASON FOR THE DELAY .THE ENTIRE OPERATION OF LOADING AND DECANTING AT DESTINATION WERE DONE BY IOC STAFF.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 217  OC/7/2008  2050800041 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  26819  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      1. ON LIMITATION GROUND FOR DELAY OF 3 MONTHS AFTER EXPIRY OF 3 YEARS OF LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIM APPLICATION. 2. THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON AS WELL AS T/S TANK WAGON REACHED AT DESTINATION IN TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL INTACT.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 218  OC/8/2008  2050800042 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  31533  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 01-APR-16 in favour of Party      1. RAILWAYS GROUND OF CONTEST IN RCT (1) ON LIMITATION GROUND FOR DELAY OF 3 MONTHS AFTER EXPIRY OF 3 YEARS OF LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIM APPLICATION. 2. THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON AS WELL AS T/S TANK WAGON REACHED AT DETINATION IN TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL INTACT.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 219  OC/10/2008  2050800043 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  19652  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      RECEIVED AND DELIVERED 10/20 BTP CONSISTING OF HSD OF WHICH TANK WAGON NEBTP 47441 HAVING HAVING BOTTOM SEAL IN BROKEN CONDITION , LEAKING FROM THE BOTTOM VALVE AND TOP SEAL IN PROPER CONDITION . TANK WAGON NO. NEBTP 47441 T/S FROM ORIGINAL TANK WAGON . JOINT DIP TAKEN AT AOD SIDING /DMR ON 13-1-04 AND DIP FOUND 201.6 CM.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 220  OC/11/2008  2050800044 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  12807  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE THERE IS A DELAY OF 02 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS IN FILING THE CLAIM APPLICATION . NO REASONABLE GROUNDS ARE ADDUCED . FURTHERMORE , CONCERNED WAGONS BOTH SEAL WAS INTACT. HENCE, THE CLAIM REPUDIATED .  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 221  OC/13/2008  2050800046 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  4736  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE THERE IS A DELAY OF 3 MONTHS AND 22 DAYS IN FILING THE CLAIM APPLICATION . NO REASONABLE GROUNDS ARE ADDUCED . IT APPEARED FROM RECORDS THAT THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON WAS RECEIVED AT THE DESTINATION STATION IN TOP SEAL INTACT CONDITION . FURTHERMORE , THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AT DMR.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 222  OC/14/2008  2050800047 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  16382  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 10-JUL-15 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE THERE IS A DELAY OF 02 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS IN FILING THE CLAIM APPLICATION . NO REASONABLE GROUNDS ARE ADDUCED . FURTHERMORE , CONCERNED WAGONS BOTH SEAL WAS INTACT. HENCE, THE CLAIM REPUDIATED .  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 223  OC/1/2008  2050800049 MANAGER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION DEPTT.  24489  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 19-JUN-12 in favour of Party      A) IN THIS CASE THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON AS WELL AS T/S TANK WAGON WERE BOTH TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL INTACT AT THE TIME T/S AND DECANTING AT DESTINATION STATION. B)THE ENTIRE OPERATION OF LOADING, T/S AND DECANTING WERE DONE BY IOC STAFF IN PRESENCE OF RLY STAFF. C)IN TERMS OF CIRCULAR NO.C/65/0/169/ID PT ¿I, DT.4.2.1987. RAILWAY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE WHEN TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL IS INTACT.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 224  OA/2/2008  2050800050 MANAGER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION DEPTT.  30303  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 11-JUN-12 in favour of Party      2. THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON AS WELL AS T/S TANK WAGON REACHED AT DESTINATION IN TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL INTACT.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 225  OA/3/2008  2050800051 EXECUTIV DIRECTOR  780521  NF  RCT/GHY      THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AT IOCL SIDING, LOADING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF AND WAGONS WERE ALSO SELECTED BY SENDER AT THE SIDING. MOREOVER, THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER OWNER¿S RISK RATE, NO TRANSIT DELAY AS SUCH THERE WAS NO SCOPE OF CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE ENROUTE. FOR WHICH RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY COMPENSATION.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 226  OC/4/2008  2050800052 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  58841  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 04-JUN-12 in favour of Party      IT APPEARED FROM RECORDS THAT THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON WAS RECEIVED AT THE DESTINATION STATION IN TOP SEAL INTACT CONDITION ..THE ENTIRE OPERATION OF LOADING AND DECANTING AT DESTINATION WERE DONE BY IOC STAFF.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 227  OR/61/2008  2050800129 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1056923  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 30-JAN-15 in favour of Party      AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE SAID TARIFF UNDER ¿GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA-12.0, IT IS MENTIONED THAT- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED AT ¿RR¿ RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE. IN THE INSTANT CASE IOC HAS OPTED FOR ¿RR¿ RISK RATE, IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AT RR RATE TAKING 20 % SURCHARGE. AS SUCH THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS CORRECTLY COLLECTED THE 20% SURCHARGE. RAILWAY IS ONLY LIABLE FOR REFUND OF OVER CHARGE ON A/C OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 81889 /-  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 228  OR/65/2008  2050800131 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1063306  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 30-JAN-15 in favour of Party      AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE SAID TARIFF UNDER ¿GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA-12.0, IT IS MENTIONED THAT- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE. IN THE INSTANT CASE IOC HAS OPTED ¿RR¿ RISK RATE, IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AT RR RATE TAKING 20 % SURCHARGE. AS SUCH THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS CORRECTLY COLLECTED THE 20% SURCHARGE. RAILWAY IS ONLY LIABLE FOR REFUND OF OVER CHARGE ON A/C OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 62827 /-  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 229  OR/63/2008  2050800132 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1498682  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 30-JAN-15 in favour of Party       AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE SAID TARIFF UNDER ¿GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA-12.0, IT IS MENTIONED THAT- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED AT ¿RR¿ RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE. IN THE INSTANT CASE IOC HAS OPTED FOR ¿RR¿ RISK RATE, IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AT RR RATE TAKING 20 % SURCHARGE. AS SUCH THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS CORRECTLY COLLECTED THE 20% SURCHARGE. RAILWAY IS ONLY LIABLE FOR REFUND OF OVER CHARGE ON A/C OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 609560 /-  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 230  OR/64/2008  2050800133 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1466895  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 30-JAN-15 in favour of Party      AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE SAID TARIFF UNDER ¿GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA-12.0, IT IS MENTIONED THAT- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED AT ¿RR¿ RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE. IN THE INSTANT CASE IOC HAS OPTED FOR ¿RR¿ RISK RATE, IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AT RR RATE TAKING 20 % SURCHARGE. AS SUCH THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS CORRECTLY COLLECTED THE 20% SURCHARGE. RAILWAY IS ONLY LIABLE FOR REFUND OF OVER CHARGE ON A/C OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 596640/-  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 231  OR/66/2008  2050800134 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1362217  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 30-JAN-15 in favour of Party      AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE SAID TARIFF UNDER ¿GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA-12.0, IT IS MENTIONED THAT- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED AT ¿RR¿ RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE. IN THE INSTANT CASE IOC HAS OPTED FOR ¿RR¿ RISK RATE, IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AT RR RATE TAKING 20 % SURCHARGE. AS SUCH THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS CORRECTLY COLLECTED THE 20% SURCHARGE. RAILWAY IS ONLY LIABLE FOR REFUND OF OVER CHARGE ON A/C OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 536561 /-  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 232  OR/67/2008  2050800151 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1068752  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 30-JAN-15 in favour of Party      AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE SAID TARIFF UNDER ¿GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA-12.0, IT IS MENTIONED THAT- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED AT ¿RR¿ RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE. IN THE INSTANT CASE IOC HAS OPTED FOR ¿RR¿ RISK RATE, IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AT RR RATE TAKING 20 % SURCHARGE. AS SUCH THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS CORRECTLY COLLECTED THE 20% SURCHARGE. RAILWAY IS ONLY LIABLE FOR REFUND OF OVER CHARGE ON A/C OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 63122 /-  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 233  OA/70/2008  2050800153 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  49818  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 31-MAR-16 in favour of Party      AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II W.E.F. 01.04.2007, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE ABOVE TARIFF UNDER¿ GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA- 12.0- IT IS MENTIONED THAT --- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED AT ¿RR¿ RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE.¿ IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CONSIGNOR IOC AUTHORITY HAS OPTED FOR RR RISK RATE IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. HENCE, UNDER CHARGE . OF RS. 2, 89,125/- WAS ACCRUED ON ACCOUNT OF 20% SURCHARGE WHICH IS DUE FROM THE CONSIGNOR. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION IS LIABLE FOR RS. 49,818/- AS REFUND OF OVER CHARGE ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AND IOC IS ALSO LIABLE TO PAY RS. 2, 89,125/- AS UNDER CHARGE ON ACCOUNT OF CARRYING THE COMMODITIES ON ¿RR¿ RISK RATE.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 234  OR/68/2008  2050800170 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1495764  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 30-JAN-15 in favour of Party       AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE SAID TARIFF UNDER ¿GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA-12.0, IT IS MENTIONED THAT- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED AT ¿RR¿ RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE. IN THE INSTANT CASE IOC HAS OPTED ¿RR¿ RISK RATE, IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AT RR RATE TAKING 20 % SURCHARGE. AS SUCH THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS CORRECTLY COLLECTED THE 20% SURCHARGE. RAILWAY IS ONLY LIABLE FOR REFUND OF OVER CHARGE ON A/C OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 606992 /-  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 235  OR/69/2008  2050800180 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  229381  NF  RCT/GHY      AS PER IRCA GOODS TARIFF NO. 45 (PT-I) VOL-II, THE POL PRODUCTS COMES UNDER THE RISK RATE ¿OR¿. IN THE SAID TARIFF UNDER ¿GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND GENERAL RULES FOR CHARGING OF FREIGHT¿ IN PARA-12.0, IT IS MENTIONED THAT- THE COMMODITIES ATTACHED WITH ¿OR¿ IN THE COLUMN RISK RATE WILL BE CHARGED AT OWNER¿S RISK. HOWEVER, COMMODITIES WITH ¿OR¿ RATE CAN BE BOOKED RATE ON PAYMENT OF 20% SURCHARGE. IN THE INSTANT CASE IOC HAS OPTED ¿RR¿ RISK RATE, IN THE FORWARDING NOTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AT RR RATE TAKING 20 % SURCHARGE. AS SUCH THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS CORRECTLY COLLECTED THE 20% SURCHARGE AND NOTHING IS REFUNDABLE.  23/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 236  OA/166/2008  2050900006 DY. MANAGER (OPS)  57172  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 29-AUG-12 in favour of Party      IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ORIGINAL TANK WAGON WAS REACHED AT THE DESTINATION STATION IN TOP SEAL INTACT CONDITION . NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE FOUND .THE ENTIRE OPERATION OF LOADING AND DECANTING AT DESTINATION WERE DONE BY IOC STAFF.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 237  OC/8/1990  2051000001 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.  79215  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 19-MAY-10 in favour of Party      THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY THE SENDER AT THEIR SIDING ON FORWARDING RLY AND THE B.G. WAGON NO. SRBRH 30372 CONTAINING THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT. AFTER LAPSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME AFTER PLACEMENT OF B.G. WAGON IN THE SAIL¿S SIDING THE APPLICANT DEMANDED FOR WITNESS OF UNLOADING AND WEIGHMENT DELIVERY. AS THERE WAS NO INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC POINT THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY FOR ANY DISCREPANCY CEASES WITH THE PLACEMENT OF WAGON HAD BEEN RECORDED JOINTLY WITH THE SAIL. SINCE RLY GOODS OFFICE STAFF IS NOT POSTED IN THE SAIL¿S SIDING THE RLY ADMINISTRATION IS NOT ACCOMTABLE FOR ANY SHORTAGE OR DISCREPANCY THAT MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE WHILE IN THE SAIL¿S SIDING.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 238  OC/7/1990  2051000002 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.  212407  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 19-MAY-10 in favour of Party      THAT THE CONSIGNMENT ARRIVED AT DESTINATION AND PLACED AT SAIL¿S SDG ON 23.2.87 AT 17 HRS FOR UNLOADING & DELIVERY. BUT THE APPLICANT COULD NOT UNLOAD THESE SAID WAGON AND KEPT IN THEIR CUSTODY FOR ABOUT 44 DAYS. THE SAME CONSIGNMENT WAS UN LOADED ON 7.4.87 AT 11.30 HRS AND ACCORDINGLY THE WEIGHMENT DELIVERY WAS GRANTED ON THE SAME DAY I.E. 7.4.87BY THE RLY. ADMINISTRATION. AS SUCH RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE WHICH WAS FOUND THE SAIL¿S SDG AFTER 44 DAYS.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 239  OC/9/1990  2051000003 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.  196298  NF  Case Settled by RCT GUWAHATI on 19-MAY-10 in favour of Party      THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED AT F/STATION SIDING AND ARRIVED AT DESTINATION ON 13.2.87 AND PLACED ON THE SAME DATE AT 12.30 HRS IN THE SAIL¿S SIDING UNDER NO ADVERSE REMARKS. AFTER LAPSE OF A CONSIDERABLE TIME THE PARTY DEMANDED FOR WITNESS OF UNLOADING AND WEIGHMENT DELIVERY. AS THERE IS NO INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC POINT THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY FOR ANY DISCREPANCY CAUSES WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THE WAGON IN THE SAIL¿S SDG. IF NO REMARKS TO THE CONTRARY AT THE TIME OF PLACEMENT OF WAGON HAD BEEN RECORDED JOINTLY WITH SAIL. SINCE RLY. GOODS OFFICE STAFF IS NOT POSTED IN THE SAIL¿S SDG THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY SHORTAGE OR DISCREPANCY THAT MIGHT TAKE PLACE WHILE IN THE SAIL¿S SDG. THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE TOOK PLACE WHILE IN THE SAIL¿S SIDING FOR WHICH RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY COMPENSATION.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 240  TA/1146/1990  2051000004 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.  213316  NF  RCT/GHY      THE APPLICANT SERVED NOTICE ON 26.4.79 AND THE APPLICATION WAS FILED UNDER INVOICE NO. W-19/082695 DT. 2.1.79. AS PER DELIVERY CERTIFICATE THE ALLEGED CONSIGNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. AS SUCH, RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE. RCT DECREED ANOTHER RR NO. 082695. RESPONDENT RAILWAY APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT.CASE IS PENDING WITH HIGH COURT GUWAHATI.  26/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 241  OC/88/2000  2060000034 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  163016  SR  HC/CHN      THE APPLICATION IS FOR SHORTAGE OF 21255 LTS OF HSD. THE APPLICANTS DID NOT PROVE PROPER ENTRUSTMENT. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADING IN PARTYS SIDING ARRIVED THE DESTINATION WITHOUT ANY TRANSIT DELAY AND DELIVERED ON 16/06/1997. THE JSR WHICH IS SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES BEARS REMARKS BOTH SEALS INTACT, NO LEAKAGE. RR BEARS THE REMARKS WAGONS CERTIFIED BY TXR/TNPM. TRIBUNAL DECREED THE CASE. RAILWAYS PREFERED APPEAL BEFORE HC/MAS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: RCT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS TRANSIT DELAY. D MESSAGE FILED BEFORE RCT/MAS SHOWS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED ON 16/06/1997. THE RCT OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT TANK WAGON WAS DELIVERED WITH SEALS INTACT AND NO LEAKAGE. APPEAL IS PENDING.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 242  OA/763/1998  2060000066 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  28163  SR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 16-APR-01 in favour of Party      THIS IS DUPLICATE CASE OF OA 63/1998 (CLAIMS NO. 2060000309.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 243  OR/63/1998  2060000309 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  28163  SR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 27-APR-06 in favour of Party      THE SUIT FILED BEFORE RCT/DLI. SOUTHERN RAILWAY IS THE FORWARDING RAILWAY. THE DESTINATION RAILWAY (NORTHERN RAILWAY) IS THE SUIT CONTESTING RAILWAY. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING AS PER THIS RAILWAY RECORDS.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 244  OC/5/2001  2060000316 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  628266  SR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT BANGALORE on 31-MAY-11 in favour of Party      THE SUBJECT WAGON SC 49392 WAS DECANTED BY CARRIAGE WORKSHOP/MANGALORE ON 01/03/1998 FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE AND THE CONTENTS WERE CERTIFIED AS HSD OIL. SUPPLY ORDER NO. 10/01/6332/2/59310 DATED 30/03/2001 ISSUED AT THE RATE OF HSD OIL. VALUE OF THE SUBJECT WAGON IS RS. 2,59,089/-. M/S. IOCL WAS ADVISED TO REGULARISED. THEY REFUSED. SUPPLY ORDER WAS RETURNED. APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR ND OF MS OIL. BUT CONTENTS ACTUALLY BOOKED WAS HSD OIL. RAILWAYS CONTESTED THE APPLICATION STATING THAT THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED WAS ONLY HSD OIL AND NOT MS OIL. TECHNICAL OPINION OF DY.CME/DSL/MAS AND ADME/MAQ REVEAL THAT THE CONSIGNMENT DECANTED FROM SUBJECT WAGON WAS HSD OIL. RAILWAYS HAVE NO USE FOR MS OIL. ONLY HSD OIL IS USED IN DIESEL ENGINES. TECHNICAL OPINION OF DY.CME/DSL/MAS PRODUCED AS EVIDENCE TO SHOW ONLY HSD OIL WAS BOOKED AND NOT MS OIL AS CONTENTED BY IOCL. RCT/SBC DECREED THE CASE. RAILWAYS HAVE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HC/SBC, SINCE THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED WAS HSD OIL AND CONSUMED BY RAILWAYS. RAILWAYS USE ONLY HSD OIL AND NOT MS OIL AS PER OPINION OF DY.CME/DSL/MAS. IOCL HAVE MISDECLARED THE CONSIGNMENT AS MS OIL.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 245  OC/49/2001  2060100007 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  227622  SR  HC/CHN      OUT OF 14 WAGONS BOOKED ONE WAGON NO. WR 43737 WAS ALLEGEDLY NON DELIVERED. PDC ISSUED. ONE WAGON NO. WR 43466 WAS DELIVERED TO IOCL/TEN ON 27/04/1998. M/S. IOCL WAS ADVISED TO LINK THIS WAGON AS MATCH DELIVERY FOR THE DUE WAGON NO. WR 43737. IOCL CONTENDED THAT THE WAGON NO. WR 43466 WAS ACTUALLY BOOKED TO THEIR TPJ DEPOT ON 21/04/1998 BUT WAS DIVERTED TO TEN DEPOT AND DECANTED ON 27/04/1998. BUT THEY DID NOT FURNISHED ANY BOOKING DETAILS OR PDC TO ESTABLISH THIS CONTENTION. RCT/MAS DECREED THE CASE DIRECTING RAILWAYS TO PAY COMPENSATION. APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY RAILWAYS BEFORE HC/MAS SINCE THE PLEA OF IOCL THAT THE WAGON WR 43766 WAS BOOKED TO TPJ DEPOT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKING DETAILS AND PDC. APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE HC/MAS.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 246  OC/446/2000  2060100078 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  10856  SR  Case Settled by RCT DELHI on 21-AUG-02 in favour of Party      THE APPLICATION IS FILED BEFORE RCT/DLI. SOUTHERN RAILWAY IS THE FORWARDING RAILWAY. THE NORTHERN RAILWAY IS THE DESTINATION AND SUIT CONTESTING RAILWAY. APPLICATION IS PENDING AS PER RECORDS IN THIS OFFICE.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 247  OC/5/2005  2060400010 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  113569  SR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHENNAI on 04-MAY-11 in favour of Party      AS PER RECORDS INV.357 RR 305000 DT. 25/02/2002 WAS ISSUED FROM IPM TO DKN.INV. 484 RR 216660 OF 26/02/2002 EX. TNPS TO DKN. THE APPLICANTS FURNISHED WRONG BOOKING DETAILS IN THE APPLICATION AND CLAIMS LETTER AS IF ENTIRE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED FROM TNPS UNDER ONE INVOICE. AS PER OD REPORT, REWEIGHMENT WAS GRANTED FOR SIX WAGONS UNDER INV 357 AND THREE WAGONS UNDER INV 484. REWEIGHMENT SHOWS SHORTAGE IN 7 WAGONS AND EXCESS LOADING IN TWO WAGONS. APPLICANTS DID NOT REVEAL THE EXCESS LOADING AND CLAIM ONLY FOR SHORTAGE. RAILWAYS CONTESTED THE VALID CLAIM NOTICED UNDER SEC. 106 AND ACTUAL ENTRUSTMENT. RCT/MAS HELD THAT APPLICANTS HAVE FURNISHED WRONG BOOKING DETAILS IN THE CLAIM NOTICE AND HENCE IT IS INVALID. APPLICANT ALSO COULD NOT PROVE WITH DOCUMENTS THE ACTUAL QUANTITY OF THE CONSIGNMENT ENTRUSTED FOR CARRIAGE. RCT/MAS DISMISSED THE CASE. APPLICANTS FILED APPEAL BEFORE HC/MAS AND IS PENDING.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 248  OA/77/1992  2060500074 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  621996  SR  Case Settled by RCT BANGALORE CITY on 28-JAN-08 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF FRAUDULENT DELIVERY UNDER FORGED RR. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS SEIZED BY RAILWAY POLICE AND A CRIMINAL CASE WAS REGISTERED. THE APPLICATION WAS CONTESTED UNDER SEC.93(D) OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989. THE RCT ORDERED PAYMENT. APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER BY BOTH RAILWAYS AND M/S. SAIL. HIGH COURT DISMISSED RAILWAY APPEAL AND ALLOWED PARTY APPEAL REGARDING COST. DECREED AMOUNT RS.621996+INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM 13.07.92 TO 31.08.2008 RS. 601781 AMOUNTING TO 1223777. 50% OF THIS AMOUNT (RS. 611888) WAS DEPOSITED IN RCT/SBC, WHICH THE PARTY HAS FILED PETETION TO WITHDRAW THE AMOUNT. RAILWAY HAS NO OBJECTION. NOW RAILWAY WANTS TO WAIVE INTEREST FROM 13.07.1992 ONWARDS AND COST OF RS. 20000 AWARDED BY HC/SBC.  10/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 249  OC/6/2005  2060500101 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  191977  SR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT CHENNAI on 28-MAR-17 in favour of Party      RR WAS ISSUED. BUT SUBJECT WAGON SE 77940 WAS REJECTED FOR LOADING DUE TO NON STANDARD FUEL PIPE AND ARRIVED FROM THE OIL SIDING AS EMPTY ALONG WITH OTHER WAGONS. IT WAS DETACHED AND KEPT IN SICK LINE. ON 06/05/2002 IT WAS MADE FIT AND SENT FOR FURTHER LOADING. RECORDS FROM CYM/IPM SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE WAGON WAS FOUND EMPTY AND DETACHED. ENTRUSTMENT WAS CONTESTED. CYM/IMP DEPOSED ON BEHALF OF RAILWAYS. RCT/MAS ALLOWED THE APPLICATION HOLDING RR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. APPEALL FILED BY RAILWAYS BECAUSE RECORDS SHOW SUBJECT WAGON WAS DETACHED. APPEAL PENDING BEFORE HC/MAS  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 250  OC/200/1992  2060600022 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  246458  SR  Case Settled by RCT MADRAS on 29-JUN-10 in favour of Party      CASE CLOSED.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 251  OA/199/1992  2060600023 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  76163  SR  HC/CHN      THE APPLICATION IS FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION DUE TO NON DELIVERY OF HSD OIL LOADED IN WAGON WR 43448. THE APPLICANTS HAVE CONSUMED HSD IN WAGON SE 95383 ON 23/02/1993 AS UNCONNECTED. THE APPLICANT WERE REQUESTED VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 15/02/2002 TO ADJUST THE CONSIGNMENT DUE IN THE SUIT INVOICE AGAINST THE SIMILAR CONSIGNMENT CONSUMED BY THEM AS UNCONNECTED. EVEN BEFORE IOCL COULD OFFER THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE THE APPLICATION WAS DECREED BY RCT/MAS. APPEAL WAS FILED FILED BY THIS RAILWAY BEFORE HC/MAS ON THE GROUNDS OF MATCH ADJUSTMENT. APPEAL WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE ON 14/06/2009. THE RAILWAY ADVOCATE HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO FILE A PETETION TO SET ASIDE THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF HC/MAS. APPEAL IS PENDING.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 252  OA/126/2007  2060700065 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  217676  SR  Case Settled by RCT BANGALORE CITY on 23-JUN-11 in favour of Party      THE APPLICANT IS FOR RECOVERY OF REFUND OF PREPAID FREIGHT. TOKKUR IS ON KONKAN RAILWAY. THE SUBJECT WAGONS ARRIVED AT PLMD AS UNCONNECTED DELIVERED TO BPCL AT PLMD ON 19/06/2000 AS PER ORDERS OF DOM/PGT, VIDE LETTER NO. J/T.432/RAKE OF 18/06/2000. SO APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHT. THE APPLICANT HAS IMPLEADED ONLY SOUTHERN RAILWAY WHO IS NOT THE PROPER PARTY. RAILWAYS CONTESTING THE CASE ON THE GROUNDS OF NON JOINDER OF PROPER PARTY, NAMELY KONKAN RAILWAY; AND CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED AT PLMD TO BPCL. SO APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHT. THE APPLICATION IS PENDING.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 253  OC/22/1998  2069800090 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  267506  SR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT BANGALORE on 26-MAY-09 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORT DELIVERY OF 17.11 MT OF CHANNELS. THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED WAS INVOLVED IN THEFT AND CRIME CASE NO. 6/95 WAS REGISTERED BY RPF/BYPL. THE CLAIM WAS CONTESTED UNDER SEC.93(C) & (D) OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989. THE RCT ORDERED PAYMENT. APPEAL BY RAILWAYS WAS DISMISSED. IT WAS DECIDED TO REFER THE CASE TO THE COMMITTEE FOR WAIVEL OF INTEREST AMOUNT.  11/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 254  OC/610/1993  2070200247 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  433432.13  SE  RCT/CCC      THIS IS A CLAIM FOR ALLEGEDLY SHORTAGE. NO PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106. NO PROOF OF ALLEGED SHORTAGE. DESTINATION REPORT SHOWS THAT THE WAGON WAS DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE MATTER AS PER RECORD IS STILL PENDING IN RCT/KOLKATA.  02/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 255  OC/1276/1993  2070200249 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  394919  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS A CLAIM FOR ALLEGED SHORT DELIVERY OF CONSIGNMENT BOOKED EX BOKARO STEEL CITY PLANT TO K P DOCK. ENQUIRY REVEALED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION WAS DELIVERED TO THE SAIL AT K P DOCK UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE ON 22.04.91. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED THE CASE IS PENDING FOR DECISION OF THE RCT/KOL  07/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 256  OC/987/1996  2070201801 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  7406  SE  RCT/CCC      THE AFORESAID MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE RCT/KOL BENCH .THIS IS A"DCR"CASE AS PER DOCK MANAGER/CPT CONSIGNEE HAS TAKEN DELIVERY UNDER CLEARENCE RECEIPT WITHOUT INDICATING ANY REMARKS(SHORTAGE)IN THE S.P.BOOK AT DESTINATION.  02/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 257  OC/2124/1994  2070300641 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  98301  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS ACLAIM FOR ALLEGED SHORT DELIVARY OF CONSIGNMENT. THIS RAILWAY HAS NOT RECEIVED A FORMAL NOTICE FROM THE RCT/KOLKATA IMPLEADING BOTH EASTERN RAILWAY AND SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY NO PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 ON S.E.RAILWAY. APPARENTLY THE APPLICATION IS BARRED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW OF LIMITATION. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT YET SUBSTANCIATE HIS CLAIM BY PRODUCING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUCH AS SHORT CERTIFICATE, MGR ETC. DESTINATION REPORT SHOWS THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE CASE IS PENDING FOR A DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE RCT/KOLKATA.  02/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 258  OC/36/1990  2070301136 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  11963.1  SE  RCT/PNBE      THE SUIT NUMBER PROJECTED IN JIDRP SITE IS 36/1990 BUT ON ENQUIRY THE CASE NO IS 36/01/10 OF RCT/PATNA ARISING OUT OF MS NO 31 OF 1981 OF SUB JUDGE PATNA. IT IS CASE FOR SHORTAGE OF 2100 MT GALVANISED CORROGATED SHEETS BOOKED UNDER INVOICE NO 43 RR NO 990229 DATED 07/03/1979 FROM ROURKELA STEEL PLANT TO RAJENDRANAGAR GOODS SHED (E.RLY).VALUE OF CLAIM IS RS 11963.10 P SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE NO 35/PNBE/80 DATED 03/01/1980 OF CGS/PATNA JUNCTION AS ALLEGED. DESTINATION LIES ON E.RLY (NOW ECR) BUT S.E.RLY IS IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT NO -1. THE CASE WAS ENLISTED FOR WS ON 26.05.2001 SINCE THEN NO POSITION COULD BE KNOWN FROM E.RLY OR RCT/PATNA  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 259  OA/3743/1990  2070500246 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  205220  SE  RCT/CCC       IT IS A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION TOWARDS ALLEGED SHORT - DELIVARY OF CONSIGNMENT BOOKED EX BNDM TO SHM. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE. THE RAILWAY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED TO THE BOOKED CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING FOR DECISION OF THE HONERABLE TRIBUNAL.  28/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 260  OA/3251/1991  2070500855 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  410290  SE  RCT/CCC      M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD HAVE FILED THE CLAIM APPLICATION FOR RECOVERY OF RS 410290.30 DUE TO NON-DELIVARY OF WAGON NO WR 13462 BFR COTAINING 42.700 MT SAID TO CONTAIN PLATES. ENQUIRY REVELES THAT THE SAID WAGON WR 13462 WAS MADE OVER TO E.RLY AT ANDUL ON 17.03.89 AND LYING UNDELIVERED.AFTER IT WAS WRONGLY UNLOADED A FRESH RR WAS ISSUED & BOOKED FROM BTE TO K.P.DOCK IN WAGON NO SE 60683 UNDER INVOICE NO 1, RR NO 387342 DATED 09.09.1989. ULTIMATELY THE WAGON WAS PLACED AT HIDE SHED SIDING OF M/S BRITHWAITE & CO ON 17.03.1990.AND M/S BRAITHWAITE & CO LTD UNLOADED THE WAGON WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF RR /I BOND . SUBSEQUENTLY TOTAL QUANTITY OF 9 PCS OUT OF 10 PCS WEIGHING 41.280 MT INSTEAD OF 42.700 MT WAS DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT SAIL.AFTER UNLOADING THE GOODS SAIL RECTIFIED THE CLAIM AMOUNT WHICH IS RS 22580/- INSTEAD OF RS 410290.30 RAILWAY AUTHORITY OFFERED TO SETTLE THE CLAIM FOR RS 21278.22 EXCLUDING EX-DUTY BUT SAIL DOESNOT AGREED TO SETTLE THE CLAIM FOR RS 21278.22 INSTEAD OF RS 22580/- ONLY CASE IS PENDING  26/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 261  OC/1954/1993  2070501341 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  344207  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS A CASE FOR ALLEGED SHORT DELIVERY OF G P SHEET 23.14 MT BOOKED EX BOKARO STEEL PLANT TO K P DOCK.DESTINATION REPORT SHOWS THAT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN DELIVERY BY THE SAIL AS ONE WAGON OF G P SHEET WITHOUT INDICATING ANY SHORTAGE ON S P BOOK.THE RLY CONTESTING AS ABOVE.THE MATTER IS PENDING AT RCT/KOL.  07/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 262  OA/121/2005  2070700328 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  9958866  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS ACLAIMS FOR REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS FREIGHT. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION WERE BOOKED UNDER RATIONALISATION SCHEME EX HALDIA TO BOKARO STEEL PLANT VIA DANKUNI AND ACCORDINGLY FREIGHT WAS PAID BUT THE RAKE WERE ACTUALLY CARRIED VIA MIDNAPUR - ADRA ROUTE WHICH IS SHORTER THAN THAT OF THE BOOKED ROUTE BY 83 KMS THUS THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED HAS FILED THE CASE FOR REFUND OF THE DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHTS BETWEEN THE BOOKED ROUTE AND THE ROUTE THROUGH WHICH GOODS CARRIED.THE RAILWAY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE BOOKED CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT IN TIME AND ALSO SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT ALONG WITH OTHER AVAIABLE GROUNDS. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING FOR A DECISION OF THE RCT/KOL  09/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 263  OA/123/2005  2070700329 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  10403005  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS ACLAIMS FOR REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS FREIGHT. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT IN QUESTION WERE BOOKED UNDER RATIONALISATION SCHEME EX HALDIA TO BOKARO STEEL PLANT VIA DANKUNI AND ACCORDINGLY FREIGHT WAS PAID BUT THE RAKE WERE ACTUALLY CARRIED VIA MIDNAPUR - ADRA ROUTE WHICH IS SHORTER THAN THAT OF THE BOOKED ROUTE BY 83 KMS THUS THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED HAS FILED THE CASE FOR REFUND OF THE DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHTS BETWEEN THE BOOKED ROUTE AND THE ROUTE THROUGH WHICH GOODS CARRIED.THE RAILWAY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE BOOKED CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT IN TIME AND ALSO SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT ALONG WITH OTHER AVAIABLE GROUNDS. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING FOR A DECISION OF THE RCT/KOL  09/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 264  OA/644/2005  2070700388 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  11401720  SE  RCT/CCC      THE RAIONALISATION SCHEME EX HALDIA TO BOKARO STEEL PLANT VIA DANKUNI AND ACCORDINGLY FREIGHT WAS PAID BUT THE RAKES WERE ACTUALY CARRIED VIA MIDNAPUR- ADRA ROUTE WHICH IS SHORTER THAN THAT OF THE BOOKED ROUTE BY 83 KM. THUS THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED HAS FILED THE CASE FOR REFUND OF THE DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHTS BETWEEN THE BOOKED ROUTE AND THE ROUGHT THROUGH WHICH GOODS CARRIED.THE RAILWAY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE BOOKED CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT IN TIME AND ALSO SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING FOR DECISION OF THE RCT/CAL.  25/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 265  OA/808/2005  2070700510 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  19077270  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS FREIGHT. THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE CONSIGNMENTS IN QUESTION WERE BOOKED UNDER THE RATIONALISATION SCHEME EX HALDIA TO BOKARO STEEL PLANT VIA DANKUNI AND ACCORDINGLY FREIGHT WAS PAID BUT RAKES WERE ACTUALY CARRIED VIA MIDNAPUR-ADA ROUTE WHICH IS SHORTER THAN OF THE BOOKED ROUTE BY 83 KMS THUS THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED HAS FILED THE CASE FOR REFUND OF DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHTS BETWEEN THE BOOKED ROUTE AND THE ROUTE THROUGH WHICH GOODS CARRIED. THR RAILWAY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE BOOKED CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT IN TIME AND ALSO SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF THE RAILWAY ACT ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING FOR A DECISION OF THE RCT/CAL.  08/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 266  OA/1603/2003  2070700575 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  28460780  SE  RCT/CCC      THE RAIONALISATION SCHEME EX HALDIA TO BOKARO STEEL PLANT VIA DANKUNI AND ACCORDINGLY FREIGHT WAS PAID BUT THE RAKES WERE ACTUALY CARRIED VIA MIDNAPUR- ADRA ROUTE WHICH IS SHORTER THAN THAT OF THE BOOKED ROUTE BY 83 KM. THUS THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED HAS FILED THE CASE FOR REFUND OF THE DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHTS BETWEEN THE BOOKED ROUTE AND THE ROUGHT THROUGH WHICH GOODS CARRIED.THE RAILWAY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE BOOKED CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT IN TIME AND ALSO SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING FOR DECISION OF THE RCT/CAL.  25/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 267  OA/436/2004  2070700617 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  80670583  SE  RCT/CCC      THE RAIONALISATION SCHEME EX HALDIA TO BOKARO STEEL PLANT VIA DANKUNI AND ACCORDINGLY FREIGHT WAS PAID BUT THE RAKES WERE ACTUALY CARRIED VIA MIDNAPUR- ADRA ROUTE WHICH IS SHORTER THAN THAT OF THE BOOKED ROUTE BY 83 KM. THUS THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED HAS FILED THE CASE FOR REFUND OF THE DIFFERENCE OF FREIGHTS BETWEEN THE BOOKED ROUTE AND THE ROUGHT THROUGH WHICH GOODS CARRIED.THE RAILWAY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE BOOKED CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT IN TIME AND ALSO SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING FOR DECISION OF THE RCT/CAL.  25/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 268  OA/211/2006  2070700730 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  216683  SE  RCT/BPL      THE RCT/BPL HAS NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SUIT AGAINST SE RAILWAY AFTER 01.04.2003,THE DATE OF TRIFURCATION OF S.E.RLY.SINCE THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT BOOKED ON 31.8.2003 EX BKSC TO BSPC SDG/BIA. THE APPLICANT HAD TO FILE SUIT AGAINST SECRLY ON WHOSE JURISDICTION THE DESTINATION STATION (BIA) LIES. HENCE THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THIS RAILWAY.  09/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 269  OA/212/2006  2070700731 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  262824  SE  RCT/BPL      THE RCT/BPL HAS NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SUIT AGAINST SE RAILWAY AFTER 01.04.2003,THE DATE OF TRIFURCATION OF S.E.RLY.SINCE THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT BOOKED ON 31.8.2003 EX BKSC TO BSPC SDG BIA. THE APPLICANT HAD TO FILE SUIT AGAINST SECRLY ON WHOSE JURISDICTION THE DESTINATION STATION (BIA) LIES. HENCE THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THIS RAILWAY.  09/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 270  OA/213/2006  2070700732 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  510011  SE  RCT/BPL      THE RCT/BPL HAS NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SUIT AGAINST SE RAILWAY AFTER 01.04.2003,THE DATE OF TRIFURCATION OF S.E.RLY.SINCE THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT BOOKED ON 31.8.2003 EX BKSC TO BSPC SDG BIA. THE APPLICANT HAD TO FILE SUIT AGAINST SECRLY ON WHOSE JURISDICTION THE DESTINATION STATION (BIA) LIES. HENCE THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THIS RAILWAY.  09/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 271  OA/214/2006  2070700733 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  175623  SE  RCT/BPL      THE RCT/BPL HAS NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SUIT AGAINST SE RAILWAY AFTER 01.04.2003,THE DATE OF TRIFURCATION OF S.E.RLY.SINCE THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT BOOKED ON 31.8.2003 EX BKSC TO BIA. THE APPLICANT HAD TO FILE SUIT AGAINST SECRLY ON WHOSE JURISDICTION THE DESTINATION STATION (BIA) LIES. HENCE THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THIS RAILWAY.  09/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 272  OA/253/2006  2070700735 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  43202  SE  RCT/BPL      THE CLAIM NOTICE DATED 13.02.04 WAS SERVED ON CCM/SECRLY/BSP. AS PER SECTION 107 OF RAILWAYS ACT THE APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE CLAIM APPLICATION AGAINEST S.E.RLY.SINCE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 HAS BEEN SERVED ON S.E.RLY.THE CASE WAS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION ON 05.02.O8.THE CASE WAS LISTED FOR RESTORATION ON 28.7.2008 FURTHER STATUS NOT KNOWN.THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED ON SECRLY.SINCE THE DESTINATION STATION LIED ON THAT RAILWAY AFTER 01.04.2003.  09/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 273  OA/254/2006  2070700736 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  551499  SE  RCT/BPL      THE RCT/BPL HAS NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SUIT AGAINST SE RAILWAY AFTER 01.04.2003,THE DATE OF TRIFURCATION OF S.E.RLY.SINCE THE SUIT CONSIGNMENT BOOKED ON 31.5.2004 EX HSPG/BNDM TO CONSTRUCTION AREA SDG/BIA STEEL PLANT. THE APPLICANT HAD TO FILE SUIT AGAINST SECRLY ON WHOSE JURISDICTION THE DESTINATION STATION (BIA) LIES. HENCE THE SUIT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THIS RAILWAY.  09/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 274  OA/1041/1994  2070700846 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  276170  SE  RCT/CCC      IMPLEADING BOTH EASTERN RAILWAY AND SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THE SUIT FOR COMPENSATION TOWARDS SHORT DELIVERY OF CONSIGNMENT BOOKED EX BOKARO STEEL PLANT TO PAHARPUR K P DOCK AS ALLEGED . NO SHORT CERTIFICATE IS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THE RAILWAY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE AS THE CLAIM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND ALSO SEEK PROTECTION U/S 65 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT.  28/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 275  OA/452/1993  2070700853 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  204753  SE  RCT/CCC      M/S SAIL FILED A CLAIM APPLICATION BEFORE THE RCT/CAL AGAINST GM/SER DUE TO SHORTAGE OF 52.10 METRIC TONNES PIG IRON .ENQUIRY REVEALS THAT LOADING WAS DONE IN ABSENCE OF ANY RAILWAY STAFF AND TOTAL CONTENTS OF THE WAGON CONTAINS PIG IRON WERE UNLOADED AND TAKEN DELIVARY BY THE PARTY WITH OUT ANY ADVERSE REMARKS IN THE SP BOOK. WRITTEN STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RCT/CAL. LAST DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED ON 26.08.1998.  07/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 276  OA/1330/1996  2070701002 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  632668  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS A CLAIM FOR NON-DELIVERY OF POSTD PLATES. IMPLEADING BOTH EASTERN RAILWAY AND SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THEY HAVE SERVED NOTICE ON BOTH EASTERN RAILWAY AND SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 106. A NOTICE CAN BE SERVED ONLY ON A RAILWAY AND THE APPLICATION CAN BE FILED ONLY AGAINST THAT RAILWAY ON WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED. MOREOVER, THE DESTINATION STATION LIES JURISDICTION OF EASTERN RAILWAY(DSEY)AND THUS THE APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY. THIS MATTER IS STILL PENDING FOR A DECISION OF RCT/KOLKATA.  02/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 277  TA/835/1990  2070701009 WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED  959  SE  RCT/BPL      THE MATTER WAS REFERED TO RCT /BPL BENCH WHO HAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NO CASE PENDING AGAINEST RR NO 868759 DATED 22.03.77 EX KLCH TO BSPR OF WCLTD SINCE THE CASE WAS WRONGLY TRANSFERED TO RCT /BPL , SAME WAS REMANDED TO THE CIVIL COURT LONG BACK.  26/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 278  OA/247/2001  2070900032 IOC  2806884  SE  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 05-FEB-09 in favour of Party      THE CLAIM HAS BEEN SETTLED OUT OF COURT FOR RS.12,14,730/- VIDE CHEQUE NO.989905 DT. 20.08.2009 WHICH WAS HANDED OVER TO MR. B. S. PANDEY, LAW OFFICER, I.O.C. ON 18.09.2009 THE APPLICANT HAS NOT FILED FINAL SATISFACTION IN THE RCT.  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 279  MISC/53/2006  2071000001 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  117151  SE  RCT/BPL      THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 17 OF RCT ACT, 1987 SINCE THE CA HAS BEEN FILED ON 04.09.1996 WHILE THE DATE OF BOOKING IS ON 20.03.2002. THE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED BY CLAIMS BRANCH OF S.E.RAILWAY ON THE GROUND THAT MOTOR SPIRIT IS HIGHLY VOLATILE IN NATURE THIS MIGHT BE A CAUSE OF SHORTAGE.  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 280  OA/50/2000  2071000007 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  248948  SE  RCT/BPL      THE INSTANT CLAIM APPLICATION HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE WAY OF PURCHASE ORDER NO.S/92/997/5020/2/60024 DT. 03.05.2002 AGAINST INTERCEPTED TANK WAGON NO.SE-77367, R/R. NO.785028 DT. 20.10.1996 EX. BUDGE-BUDGE TO JAYANT(SHAKTINAGAR) COMMODITY HSD HOWEVER THE APPLICANT HAS NOT WITHDRAWN THE CLAIM YET FROM RCT.  05/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 281  OA/1/2009  2071000012 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  217164  SE  RCT/SC      S.E.R FILLED REPLY TAKING THE PLEA OF 1)STRICT PROOF OF SERVICE OF CLAIM NOTICE U/S 106 OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT 1989. 2)TWO DIFFERENT COMMODITIES ( THAT IA COOKING COAL AND SULPHUR) BOOKED UNDER THE DIFFENT INDENT ON THE SAME DAY WHICH ARE NOT STANDARD RAKE FOR AVAILING TRAIN LOAD BENEFIT .SO FORWARDIND STATION HAD CORRECTLY BEENING CHARGED THE CONSIGNMENT AS WAGON LOAD RATE. MOREOVER COOKING COAL AND SULPHUR ARE NOT CLUBBED EACH OTHER FOR GETTING TRAIN LOAD FACILITIES.  11/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 282  OA/2/2009  2071000013 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  384710  SE  RCT/SC      S.E.R FILLED REPLY TAKING THE PLEA OF 1)STRICT PROOF OF SERVICE OF CLAIM NOTICE U/S 106 OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT 1989. 2)TWO DIFFERENT COMMODITIES ( THAT IA COOKING COAL AND SULPHUR) BOOKED UNDER THE DIFFENT INDENT ON THE SAME DAY WHICH ARE NOT STANDARD RAKE FOR AVAILING TRAIN LOAD BENEFIT .SO FORWARDIND STATION HAD CORRECTLY BEENING CHARGED THE CONSIGNMENT AS WAGON LOAD RATE. MOREOVER COOKING COAL AND SULPHUR ARE NOT CLUBBED EACH OTHER FOR GETTING TRAIN LOAD FACILITIES.  11/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 283  OA/3/2009  2071000014 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  192791  SE  RCT/SC      S.E.R FILLED REPLY TAKING THE PLEA OF 1)STRICT PROOF OF SERVICE OF CLAIM NOTICE U/S 106 OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT 1989. 2)TWO DIFFERENT COMMODITIES ( THAT IA COOKING COAL AND SULPHUR) BOOKED UNDER THE DIFFENT INDENT ON THE SAME DAY WHICH ARE NOT STANDARD RAKE FOR AVAILING TRAIN LOAD BENEFIT .SO FORWARDIND STATION HAD CORRECTLY BEENING CHARGED THE CONSIGNMENT AS WAGON LOAD RATE. MOREOVER COOKING COAL AND SULPHUR ARE NOT CLUBBED EACH OTHER FOR GETTING TRAIN LOAD FACILITIES.  11/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 284  OA/1445/1999  2071000021 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  400808  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION TOWARDS ALLEGED SHORT DELIVERY OF GOODS BOOKED EX ROURKELA STEEL PLANT TO SHALIMAR.RLY HAS CONTESTED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT GOODS WAS DELIVERED TO THE BOOKED CONSIGNEE AT SHALIMAR UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT.NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED IN THIS CASE.THE CASE IS PENDING FOR A DECISION OF THE RCT/KOL.  26/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 285  TA/6575/1991  2071000022 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  246605  SE  RCT/CCC      THE INSTANT APPLICATION WAS FILED BY APPLICANT IN THE COURT OF 8TH SESSION JUDGE ALIPORE(NOW IN RCT/CAL) FOR REALISATION OF COMPENSATION OF THE SAID AMOUNT FOR SHORTAGE OF THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED UNDER THE SUBJECT BOOKING PARTICULARS.OLD COURT FILE ONLY PLAINT COPY IS AVAILABLE.NO ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE.WHEN RCT FILES ARE OPENED CLAIM FILES ALSO NOT AVAILABLE.WS WAS PREPARED AND FILED ON 22.10.1999.CASE IS ON HEARING STAGE.  26/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 286  OA/79/2007  2071000023 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  449580  SE  RCT/BPL      THE APPLICATION IS MISCONCEIVED AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON SER SINCE NEITHER THE FORWARDING STATION (VIZAG) NOR THE DESTINATION STATION (BIA). LIES WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURRISDICTION OF SER PRESENTLY. THE DATE OF BOOKING BEING 20.07.04 ,THE SEC RLY COME INTO BEING W.E.F. 01/04/03( DATE OF TRIFURCATION OF SER. THIS APART, THE APPLICATION IS BARRED BY LAW OF LIMITATION (SEC 17(2)) THE CLAIM APPLICATION FILLED ON RCT ON 27/07/07 NO DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY RCT/ BPL  26/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 287  TA/6295/1991  2071000024 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  277092  SE  RCT/CCC      THE CLAIMS IS FOR SHORTAGE.NO PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 106 AND AS ALLEGED SHORTAGE BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.THE CONSIGNEEIS M.M.C AND THE TITLE OF THE APPLICANT IS DISPUTED.THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM SUB-JUDGE OF ALIPORE TO RCT/KOLU/S 24 OF THE RCT ACT.  09/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 288  OA/895/1994  2071000025 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  201917  SE  RCT/CCC      THE CASE IS FILED BY SAIL FOR ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF 19.170 MT H.R SHEET .THE WAGON NO ER 100198 PLACED AT K P DOCK ON 17-8-91AND DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT ON 19-8-91 UNDER SIGNATURE.AFTER TAKING DELIVERY THE APPLICANT WEIGHED THE CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT THE SUPERVISION OF THE RAILWAY STAFF.W.S SUBMITTED IN TIME . AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED BY SAIL AND REPLY ALSO SUBMITTED BY S.E.RLY.  09/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 289  OA/117/2008  2071000027 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  1185977  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS A CLAIM FOR ALLEGED SHORT DELIVERY OF CONSIGNMENT BOOKED EX BHILAI STEEL PLANT TO DURGAPUR STEEL EXCHANGE YARD.THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS TECHNICALLY BAD IN LAW AND NOT MAINTENABLE AGAINST SE RLY.SAIL HAS IMPLEADED GM SE RLY IN STEAD OF UOI.FOWARDING LIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SEC RLY.IN THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH AND DESTINATION IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF E RLY AND ALSO CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE ON E RLY.THE RLY CONTESTING ACCORDINGLY ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS.ADECISION OF RCT/CAL IS STILL PENDING.  07/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 290  OC/255/1999  2071000028 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  241494  SE  RCT/CCC      IT IS A CLAIM FOR ALLEGED SHORT DELIVERY OF H P PLATES BOOKED EX BOKARO STEEL PLANT TO K P DOCK E RLY AND SE RLY BOTH ALONG WITH M/S BRAITHWAITE AND CO LTD ARE IMPLEADED HERE.THE BOOKED CONSIGNED DULY ARRIVED AT THE DESTINATION K P DOCK,THERE WAS NO TRANSIT DELAY AT K P DOCK.THE CONSIGNMENT WAS UNLOADED WRONGLY BY M/S BRAITHWAITE CO LTD.AND THEREAFTER AT THE REQUEST OF THEN PORT AUTHORITY THE SAME WAS SHIFTED BY TRUCK TO THE SAIL.THE SAIL AUTHORITY ALLEGED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED SHORT 14.92MT OF HP PLATE.NO SHORTAGR CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE.THE RLY IS CONTESTING THE CASE ON THE ABOVE GROUND.THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING FOR A DECISION OF THE RCT/KOL.  07/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 291  OA/13/2009  2071000039 ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD  591531  SE  RCT/BPL      NITHER THE FORWARDING STATION BACHELI NOR THE DESTINATION STATION VZP PRESENTLY LIES ON S.E.RAILWAY. THE CLAIM APPLICATION IS SUIT BARRED SINCE DATE OF BOOKING OF CONSIGNMENT IS 30.10.06. WHERE AS DATE OF FILLING IS ON 20.11.09 .APART OF THIS NO NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON S.E.RAILWAY U/S 106OF RAILWAYS ACT.HENCE CA NOT MAINTAINABLE.  29/Jul/2010  No  No  No  No
 292  TA/2972/1991  2071000041 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  26600  SE  RCT/CCC      THE INSTANT SUIT (CLAIM APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE APPLICATION IN OLD COURT AND SUBSIQUENTLY TRANSFERED TO RCT KOLKATA FOR PARTIAL SHORTAGE OF THE BOOKED CONSIGNMENT NO CASE WAS OPENED ACCORDING TO OUR SUIT REGISTER CLAIMFILE IS ALSO NOT AVAILABLE AS IT WAS DESTROYED BY OFFICE. RCT FILE CONTAINS ONLY. THE PLAINT WHICH SHOWS THE CASE WAS SUIT BARRED EXCLUDING THE TIME OF 80CPC NOTICE . WS WAS SUBMITED BEFORE THE RCT/KOL.  02/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 293  TA/5871/1992  2071000044 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  5668  SE  RCT/CCC      HONBLE RCT/CAL IN ITS ORDER DT 22.1.02 ASKED ITE APPLICANT TO FILE THE SUIT IN THE PROPER COURT.THE APPLICANT FILED A PETITION TO VACATE THE ORDER.ARGUMENT WAS HEARD ON 17.4.02.ORDER IS PENDING.  03/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 294  TA/480/1993  2071000047 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  94731  SE  RCT/CCC      M/S SAIL FILED CLAIMAPPLICATION BEFORE THE OLD COURT AND SUBSIQUENTLY TRANSFERED TO RCT FOR REALISATION OF RS 94731.60 DUE TO SHORTAGE OF BOOKED CONSIGNMENT THE OLD COURT CASE FILE HAVING ONLY THE PLAINT, NO OTHER DOCUMENT AVAILABLE MOREOVER THE CLAIM FILE IS DESTROYED. WS WAS SUBMITED BEFORE THE COURT.  05/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 295  OA/12/2007  2071000061 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  1489755  SE  Case Settled by RCT BHUBANESWAR on 27-DEC-10 in favour of Party      M/S FCI ADMINISTRATION FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS BENCH CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND RS 1489755 FOR THE CONSIGNMENT CONTAINING 40 BCXT WAGONS OF WHEAT BOOKED EX FIROZPUR CITY TO CUTTACK VIDE INVOICE NO 3 RR NO C 947278 DATED 20.08.96.APPLICANTS ALLEGATION WAS THAT THOUGH THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED BY CGS/FZP FOR PREPARATION OF PAID RR BUT ACTUALLY TO PAY RR WAS ISSUED BY CGS/FZP BY ADJUSTING THE ABOVE FREIGHT WITH RAILWAYS DUE SUCH AS DEMURRAGE CHARGES/UNDER CHARGES. LATER AT DESTINATION STATION CGS/CTC AGAIN COLLECTED FREIGHT FROM M/S FCI ADMINISTRATION. HENCE THE SUIT WAS FILED BY M/S FCI CLAIMING REFUND OF DOUBLE COLLECTION OF FREIGHT. THE RAILWAYS PLEAS WERE THAT 1) ON LIMITATION GROUND ,2) THE FREIGHT WAS ADJUSTED WITH RAILWAYS DUES AND AGAIN COLLECTED AT CTC STATION CORRECTLY AS PER RULES. NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN RCT/BBS/BENCH FOR DISPOSAL.  18/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 296  OA/20/2007  2071000064 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  212426  SE  Case Settled by RCT BHUBANESWAR on 27-DEC-10 in favour of Party      M/S FCI ADMINISTRATION FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS BENCH CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT AMOUNTING RS 212426 RELATED WITH THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED EX KESINGA TO CUTTACK VIDE INVOICE NO 1 TO 5 RR NO B- 754545 TO B-754549 DATED 22/26.10.98 ORS CONTAINING 40 BCN WAGONS OF FOOD GRAINS. APPLICANTS ALLEGATION WAS THAT THOUGH THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED IN A SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS 480 KMS VIA TITLAGARH- SAMBALPUR- TALCHER- CUTTUCK WHERE AS THE RESPONDENT S.E.RAILWAY CHARGED FREIGHT FOR A DISTANCE OF 661 KMS.APPEARS TO BE BY LONGER ROUTE AND REALISED HIGHER FREIGHT. THE RAILWAYS PLEAS WERE MAINLY 1) ON LIMITATION GROUND ,2) THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED AS PER CIRCULAR OF RAILWAY BOARD OF RATIONALISATION ROUTE. NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN RCT/BBS/BENCH FOR DISPOSAL.  19/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 297  OA/22/2007  2071000066 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  33256  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S FCI ADMN FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT BBS BENCH CLAIMING REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT AMOUNTING RS 33256.THEIR ALLEGATION WAS THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO PAY LOWER RATE OF FREIGHT ALLOWED FOR FOOD GRAINS TRAFFIC BY RAILWAY. THIS RAILWAY COLLECTED THE FREIGHT AT 80TL CLASS WHERE AS THE FREIGHT ON FOOD GRAINS BOOKED BY FCI WERE TO BE CALCULATED AT 80MTL WHICH WAS A LOWER RATE OF FREIGHT ALLOWED FOR FOOD GRAINS.BOOKED BY FCI EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.94 AS SPONSORED FOOD GRAIN TRAFFIC BY RAILWAY. THIS RAILWAYS PLEAS WERE THAT THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THERE WAS NO ENDORSEMENT IN THE FORWARDING NOTE AS SPONSORED FOOD HENCE FREIGHT WAS CALCULATED AT A HIGHER RATE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED FOR RS 33256 PLUS COST AND INTEREST. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED APPEAL IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. LATER THE DECREE HOLDER M/S FCI ADMN FILED EXECUTION PETITION IN RCT/BBS BENCH VIDE NO 09/2008 DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF THE DECREETAL AMOUNT. TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTION PETITION HONOURABLE H/C CUTTACK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE DECREETAL AMOUNT ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST THAT IS RS 43126 IN RCT BBS BENCH. AS PER ORDER OF HONOURABLE HC/CUTTACK THIS RAILWAY DEPOSITED THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN RCT BBS BENCH ON 08.01.2010. NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE HC/CUTTACK.  09/Feb/2011  No  No  No  No
 298  OA/30/2007  2071000069 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  212000  SE  Case Settled by RCT BHUBANESWAR on 27-DEC-10 in favour of Party      M/S FCI FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING REFUND OF RS 212000 DUE TO ALLEGED OVERCHARGED OF FREIGHT FOR THE CONSIGN MENT ON 06/08.3.98 UNDER INVOICE NO 09/14 RR NO B754534 TO B 754539 FROM KESINGA TO CUTTACK. APPLICANT ALLEGATION WAS THAT THOUGH THE CONSIGNMEMT WAS CARRIED IN A SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS VIA TITLAGARH SAMBALPUE TALCHAR CUTTUCK DISTANCE BEING 480 KMS THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED FOR A LONGER ROUTE FOR DISTANCE OF 661 KMS. HENCE THE CLAIM APPLICATION WAS MADE BY M/S FCI FOR ALLEGED REFUND OF OVER CHARGES COLLECTED. THIS RAILWAY DEFENDED THE SUIT TAKING THE PLEA 1) ON LIMITATION GROUND , 2) THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AS PER RLY BOARD CIRCULAR. NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN RCT/BBS BENCH  11/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 299  OA/31/2007  2071000070 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  33387  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S FCI ADMN FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS BENCH CLAIMING REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT AMOUNTING RS.33387/-. FCI ADMN ALLEGATION WAS THAT RAILWAY CHARGED HIGHER RATE OF FREIGHT THOUGH THEY WERE ELIGIBLE TO PAY LOWER RATE OF FREIGHT FOR CARRIAGE OF FOOD GAINS UNDER THE RULS. THIS RAILWAY DEFENDED THE SUIT TAKING THE PLEAS THAT THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE SUIT WAS FILED IN RCT/BBS BENCH ON 21.02.07 THAT IS AFTER EXPIERE OF 12 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF BOOKING. THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY BY THIS RAILWAY AS PER RULE OF RAILWAY BOARD. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS FOR RS.33387 PLUS COST PLUS INTEREST AT THE RATE OF SEVEN PERCENT. LATER THE APPLICANT MS. FCI ADMN FILED EXECUSION PETITION IN RCT/BBS BENCH VIDE NO.12/2008 DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF THE DECREETAL AMOUNT. BEING AGREED BY THE ORDER OF RCT/BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APEAL IN HONARABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK VIDE NO FAO 138/2008. WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE APEAL HONARABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE DECREETAL AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST PLUS COST TO RCT/BBS BENCH TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY MS. FCI ADMN. AS PER ORDER THIS RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS. 43104 IN RCT/BBS BENGH ON 08/01/10 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONARABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK.  25/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 300  TA/25/1993  2071000074 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  800000  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED FILLED THE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF FREIGHT COLLECTED BY THIS RAILWAY AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED VIA LONGER ROUTE IE 1168 KMS BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED VIA SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS 1039 KMS. THIS RAILWAY HAD TOOK THE PLEAS 1.ON LIMITATION GROUND,2.THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY ON RATIONALISATION SCHEME AS PER RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR AND 3. SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF RLYS ACT.ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS.SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH ON 29.11.2004 FOR RS 800000 + COST+INTEREST IN FAVOUR OF M/S SAIL. LATER THE DECREE HOLDER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION VIDE NUMBER 14/06 IN RCT BBS BENCH DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF DECREETAL AMOUNT BY THIS RAILWAY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL VIDE FAO NO- 78/2005 IN HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT AND ON THE PRAYER OF THIS RAILWAY, TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL IN RCT BBS BENCH,THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE FIFTY PERCENT OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT DECREED BY RCT BBS BENCH ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST IN H/C CUTTUCK. WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT SHALL BE RELEASE IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT AND BE KEPT IN FIXED DEPSITE UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 898965 IN THE HONORABLE H/C CUTTUCK VIDE CHEQUE NO 672984 DATED 03.01.2007 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE H/C CUTTUCK  31/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 301  OA/28/1993  2071000075 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  3585355  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S SAIL FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT FOR RS 3585355 FOR THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED EX VIZAG TO BHILAI VIA KGP WHICH WAS LONGER ROUTE THAT IS RATIONALIZATION SCHEME BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS ROUTED IN A SHORTER ROUTE VIA JHARSUGUDA SAMBALPUR TITLAGARH. THE DIFFERENCE WAS OF 415 KMS.RAILWAY PLEAS WAS THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY AS PER RLY BOARDS CIRCULAR REG RATIONALIZATION SCHEME AND THE CONSIGNMENT MAY BE ROUTED IN A SHORTER ROUTE THOUGH THE FREIGHT IS COLLECTED IN LONGER ROUTE AS PER SECTION 69 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989. SUBSEQUENT THE SUIT DECREED BY RCT/BBS FOR RS 3585355 PLUS COST PLUS INTEREST.LATER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION IN RCT/BBS VIDE NO.12/2006 DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT. AS PER ORDER OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND APPEAL WAS FILED IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT/CUTTACK VIDE NO.FAO 07/2005. WHILE ADJUDICATION THE HONOURABLE COURT ORDERED TO DEPOSIT 50 PERCENT OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT IN HIGH COURT/CUTTACK TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION. AS PER ORDER OF HONOURABLE COURT THIS RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS.4225398 VIDE CHEQUE NO.122647 DATED 13.05.2008 DRAWN ON SBI/CUTTACK. NOW THE SUIT IS STILL PENDING IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT/CUTTACK.  14/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 302  OA/24/1993  2071000076 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  18577603  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED FILLED THE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF FREIGHT COLLECTED BY THIS RAILWAY AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED VIA LONGER ROUTE IE 1082 KMS BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED VIA SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS 667 KMS. THIS RAILWAY HAD TOOK THE PLEAS 1.ON LIMITATION GROUND,2.THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY ON RATIONALISATION SCHEME AS PER RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR AND 3. SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF RLYS ACT.ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS.SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH ON 16.09.1998 FOR RS 18577603 + COST+INTEREST IN FAVOUR OF M/S SAIL LATER THE DECREE HOLDER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION VIDE NUMBER 03/08 IN RCT BBS BENCH DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF DECREETAL AMOUNT BY THIS RAILWAY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT BBS BENCH. THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL VIDE MA NO- 776/1998 IN HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT AND ON THE PRAYER OF THIS RAILWAY, TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL IN RCT BBS BENCH,THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE DECRETAL AMOUNT DECREED BY RCT BBS BENCH ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST IN H/C CUTTUCK. RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 5,17,95,970 IN THE HONORABLE H/C CUTTUCK VIDE CHEQUE NO 122862 DATED 02.06.2008 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE H/C CUTTUCK  31/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 303  OA/23/1993  2071000077 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  495313  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED FILLED THE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF FREIGHT COLLECTED BY THIS RAILWAY AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED VIA LONGER ROUTE IE 2450 KMS BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED VIA SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS 2045 KMS. THIS RAILWAY HAD TOOK THE PLEAS 1.ON LIMITATION GROUND,2.THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY ON RATIONALISATION SCHEME AS PER RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR AND 3. SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF RLYS ACT.ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS.SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH ON 25.10.2004 FOR RS 495313 + COST+INTEREST IN FAVOUR OF M/S SAIL LATER THE DECREE HOLDER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION VIDE NUMBER 09/06 IN RCT BBS BENCH DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF DECREETAL AMOUNT BY THIS RAILWAY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL VIDE FAO NO- 06/2005 IN HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT AND ON THE PRAYER OF THIS RAILWAY, TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL IN RCT BBS BENCH,THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE FIFTY PERCENT OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT DECREED BY RCT BBS BENCH ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST IN H/C CUTTUCK. WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION THAT THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE PERMITETED TO TAKE RELEASE OF THE AMOUNT ON FURNISHING AN IMDEMNITY BOND AND AN UNDERTAKING THAT IT WOULD RETURNED THE MONEY, IN THE EVENT , THE APPEALANT SUCCEDDES IN THE APPEAL. RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 603501 IN THE HONORABLE H/C CUTTUCK VIDE CHEQUE NO 334597 DATED 19.01.2009 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE H/C CUTTUCK  31/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 304  OA/26/1993  2071000078 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  10877278  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED FILLED THE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF FREIGHT COLLECTED BY THIS RAILWAY AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED VIA LONGER ROUTE IE 1082 KMS BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED VIA SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS 667 KMS. THIS RAILWAY HAD TOOK THE PLEAS 1.ON LIMITATION GROUND,2.THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY ON RATIONALISATION SCHEME AS PER RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR AND 3. SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF RLYS ACT.ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS.SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH ON 18.11.2004 FOR RS 9548637 + COST+INTEREST IN FAVOUR OF M/S SAIL LATER THE DECREE HOLDER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION VIDE NUMBER 10/06 IN RCT BBS BENCH DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF DECREETAL AMOUNT BY THIS RAILWAY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL VIDE FAO NO- 70/2005 IN HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT AND ON THE PRAYER OF THIS RAILWAY, TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL IN RCT BBS BENCH,THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE FIFTY PERCENT OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT DECREED BY RCT BBS BENCH ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST IN H/C CUTTUCK. WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION THAT THE SHALL NOT BE RELEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT AND BE KEPT IN FIXED DEPOSIT UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS. RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 10672853 IN THE HONORABLE H/C CUTTUCK VIDE CHEQUE NO 672982 DATED 03.01.2007 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE H/C CUTTUCK  31/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 305  OA/29/1993  2071000079 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  6260118  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED FILLED THE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF FREIGHT COLLECTED BY THIS RAILWAY AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED VIA LONGER ROUTE IE 1082 KMS BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED VIA SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS 667 KMS. THIS RAILWAY HAD TOOK THE PLEAS 1.ON LIMITATION GROUND,2.THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY ON RATIONALISATION SCHEME AS PER RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR AND 3. SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF RLYS ACT.ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS.SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH ON 29.11.2004 FOR RS 6260118 + COST+INTEREST IN FAVOUR OF M/S SAIL LATER THE DECREE HOLDER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION VIDE NUMBER 13/06 IN RCT BBS BENCH DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF DECREETAL AMOUNT BY THIS RAILWAY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL VIDE FAO NO- 80/2005 IN HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT AND ON THE PRAYER OF THIS RAILWAY, TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL IN RCT BBS BENCH,THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE FIFTY PERCENT OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT DECREED BY RCT BBS BENCH ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST IN H/C CUTTUCK. WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT SHALL NOTBE RELEASED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND BE KEPT IN FIXED DEPOSIT UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS. RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 6998350 IN THE HONORABLE H/C CUTTUCK VIDE CHEQUE NO 672986 DATED 03.01.2007 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE H/C CUTTUCK  31/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 306  OA/18/1993  2071000080 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  154208  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED FILLED THE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF FREIGHT COLLECTED BY THIS RAILWAY AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED VIA LONGER ROUTE IE 2498 KMS BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED VIA SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS 2450 KMS THIS RAILWAY HAD TOOK THE PLEAS 1.ON LIMITATION GROUND,2.THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY ON RATIONALISATION SCHEME AS PER RAILWAY BOARD CICULAR AND 3. SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF RLYS ACT.ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS.SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH ON 20.9.2004 FOR RS 1,54,208 + COST+INTEREST IN FAVOUR OF MS SAIL LATER THE DECREE HOLDER MS SAIL FILED EXECUTION PITITION VIDE NUMBER 08/06 IN RCT BBS BENCH DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF DECREETAL AMOUNT BY THIS RAILWAY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL VIDE FAO NO- 05/2005 IN HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT AND ON THE PRAYER OF THIS RAILWAY, TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL IN RCT BBS BENCH,THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE FIFTY PERCENT OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT DECREED BY RCT BBS BENCH ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST IN H/C CUTTUCK. ALONG WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT SHALL NOT BE RELEASED INFAVOUR OF RESPONDENT AND BE KEPT IN FIXED DEPOSIT UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS. RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 185386 IN THE HONORABLE H/C CUTTUCK VIDE CHEQUE NO 122857 DATED 16.05.2008 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE H/C CUTTUCK  31/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 307  OA/27/1993  2071000081 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  11217785  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED FILLED THE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF FREIGHT COLLECTED BY THIS RAILWAY AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED VIA LONGER ROUTE IE 631 KMS BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED VIA SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS 320 KMS. THIS RAILWAY HAD TOOK THE PLEAS 1.ON LIMITATION GROUND,2.THAT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY ON RATIONALISATION SCHEME AS PER RAILWAY BOARD CIRCULAR AND 3. SEEKING PROTECTION U/S 69 OF RLYS ACT.ALONG WITH OTHER AVAILABLE GROUNDS.SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH ON 29.11.2004 FOR RS 11217785 + COST+INTEREST IN FAVOUR OF M/S SAIL LATER THE DECREE HOLDER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION VIDE NUMBER 11/06 IN RCT BBS BENCH DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF DECREETAL AMOUNT BY THIS RAILWAY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL VIDE FAO NO- 79/2005 IN HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT AND ON THE PRAYER OF THIS RAILWAY, TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL IN RCT BBS BENCH,THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE FIFTY PERCENT OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT DECREED BY RCT BBS BENCH ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST IN H/C CUTTUCK. WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT SHALL NOTBE RELEASED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND BE KEPT IN FIXED DEPOSIT UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS. RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 12535338 IN THE HONORABLE H/C CUTTUCK VIDE CHEQUE NO 672983 DATED 03.01.2007 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE H/C CUTTUCK  31/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 308  OA/46/1992  2071000082 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  20220766  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S SAIL FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS BENCH CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT FOR RS 20220766/- FOR 415 KMS FOR THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 14.06.1989 TO 21.12.1991 EX RSP TO DIFFERENT DESTINATIONS TO SOUTH INDIA TO BE CARRIED VIA CKP-TATA-KGP-KUR-WAT AND BEYOND, WHICH IS RATIONLISED & LONGER ROUTE. BUT THE CONSIGNMENT WAS ACTUALLY CARRIED /ROUTED IN SHORTER ROUTE VIA JSG-SBP-TIG-WAT AND BEYOND.THIS RAILWAY TOOK THE PLEAS ON LIMITATION GROUND AND THAT THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED CORRECTLY COLLECTED AS PER RLY BDS CIRCULAR REG. RATIONALISATION SCHEME I.E.LONGER ROUTE . THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH ON 29.11.2004 FOR RS 20207466/-+ COST+INTEREST. LATER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION BEFORE RCT/BBS BENCH VIDE NO 15/2006 DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF THE DECREETAL AMOUNT . SUSEQUENTLY THIS RAILWAY FILED APPEAL IN HONARABLE H.CORT /CTC VIDE NO FAO -81/2005 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT/BBS BENCH .WHILE ADJUDICTION OF THE SUIT HONOU RABLE H/CORT/CTC ORDERED ON 25.10.2006 TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL SUBJECT TO DEPOSITION OF 50%OF THE DECREETAL AMOUNT DECREED BY RCT/BBS/BENCH BEFORE THE H.CORT/CTC. AS PER ORDER THIS RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 23257331 IN THE HONOURABLE H.CORT/CTC .NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN H.CORT/CTC  13/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 309  TA/289/1990  2071000083 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  13573097  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S SAIL FILED THE SUIT IN THE COURT OF SUB JUDGE ROURKELA VIDE M.S NO115/1989 CLAIMING REFUND OF RS.13573097 AS EXCESS FREIGHT FOR THE CONSIGNMENTS CARRIED IN SHORTER ROUTE ROURKELA TO VSKP VIA JHARSUGUDA A DISTANCE OF 667 KMS. NOT VIA ROURKELA TO VSKP VIA KGP COVERING A DISTANCE OF 1087 KMS. UNDER RATIONALIZATION SCHEME AS PER RAILWAY BOARD ORDER NO 01 OF 1987 LETTER NO.87/TT/111/27/1 DATED 20.12.1985. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS TRANSFERRED TO RCT BBS BENCH IN THE YEAR OF 1990 VIDE TA. NO 289/90. THIS RAILWAYS PLEAS WERE MAINLY 1. LIMITATION GROUND AND 2. THAT THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AND COLLECTED CORRECTLY ON 08.01.1993 THE RCT/BBS BENCH DECREED THE FOR RS.13573097 + INTEREST AT THE RATE 12 PERCENT PER .ANNUM.FROM THE FILING DAY OF THE SUIT 14.08.1989 TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT/BBS THIS RAILWAY FILED FIRST APPEAL IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK VIDE NO.172/993, AMD .THE HONORABLE COURT VIDE ITS JUDGEMENT DATED 17.09.1996 HAS BEEN PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED IN TA.NO.289 1990 IN THE RCT/BBS BENCH DATED 08.01.1993. AGAIN BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT-CUTTACK DATED 17.09.1996 THIS RAILWAY FILED SECOND APPEAL IN THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE SAME COURT VIDE NO.AHO/85/1996. SUBSEQUENTLY, M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION IN THE RCT/BBS FOR ATTACHMENT OF RAILWAYS PROPERTY DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF DECRETAL AMOUNT VIDE NO.04/2008. ON 24.04.2008, THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT/CUTTACK PASSED AN ORDER FOR DEPOSITION OF ENTIRE DECRETAL DUES BY THE APPELLANT TO THE REGISTRY OF THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK FOLLOWED BY A STAY ORDER OF THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S SAIL. AS PER ORDER OF THE HONORABLE COURT THIS RAILWAY DEPOSITED DECRETAL AMOUNT OF RS.43442501 VIDE CHEQUE NO.122935 DATED 19.06.2008. LATER M/S. SAIL APPLIED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT/CUTTACK FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE ENTIRE DEPOSITED DECRETAL AMOUNT.THEN THIS RAILWAY FILED AN OBJECTION COUNTER AFFIDAVIT PRAYING FOR ORDER TO STOP THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAID AMOUNT. ON HEARING DATED 17.12.2008 THE HONOURABLE COURT ORDERED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE BOTH SIDES WILL TAKE FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE PARTIES AS TO WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO SETTLE THE MATTER OUT OF COURT BY CONSTITUTION OF A HIGH POWER COMMITTEE OF BOTH THE DEPARTMENT I.E. RAILWAY AND M/S. SAIL. AS PER ORDER THIS RAILWAY AND M/S. SAIL HAD A DISCUSSION TO SETTLE THE MATTER OUT OF COURT. BUT M/S. SAIL DISAGREED TO SETTLE THE MATTER VIDE THEIR LETTER NO.697/COMML/407 DATED 07.04.2009.NOW THE SUIT IS STILL PENDING IN HONOURBLE HIGH COURT/CUTTACK COURT  14/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 310  OA/73/1995  2071000084 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  18108847  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S SAIL FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING REFUND OF RS 18108847 FOR ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT FOR CONSIGNMENT WHICH WAS INDENTED FOR TRAIN LOAD RATE BUT THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED FOR WAGON LOAD RATE WHICH WAS HIGHER RATE THAN TRAIN LOAD RATE. RAILWAYS PLEA WAS THAT THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AND COLLECTED AS PER RAILWAY BOARDS CIRCULAR ON 11.07.2005RCT/BBS DECREED THE SUIT FOR RS 18108847 PLUS COST PLUS INTEREST. LATER M/S SAIL FILED EXECUTION PETITION IN RCT/BBS BENCH VIDE NO 16/2006 DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT . AS PER ORDER OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL VIDE NO 85/2005BEFORE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT/CUTTUCK. WHILE ADJUDICATION THE HONOURABLE COURT ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE 50 PERCENT OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT IN HIGH COURT/CUTTUCK TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTION PETITION . AS PER ORDER RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 10140596 VIDE CHEQUE NO 672981 DATED 03.01.07 IN THE HIGH COURT/CUTTUCK. NOW THE SUIT IS STILL PENDING IN HIGH COURT/CUTTUCK.  14/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 311  MA/5/2006  2071000085 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  4701760  SE  RCT/PNBE      THE CLAIMS MATTER FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF E.C.RLY .SO NECESSARY STEPS ARE TO BE TAKEN BY E.C.RLY TO SETTLE THE CASE  30/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 312  MA/4/2006  2071000086 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  2499706  SE  RCT/PNBE      THE CLAIMS MATTER FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF E.C.RLY .SO NECESSARY STEPS ARE TO BE TAKEN BY E.C.RLY TO SETTLE THE CASE  30/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 313  MA/2/2006  2071000087 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  5903054  SE  RCT/PNBE      THE CLAIMS MATTER FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF E.C.RLY .SO NECESSARY STEPS ARE TO BE TAKEN BY E.C.RLY TO SETTLE THE CASE  30/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 314  OA/44/2003  2071000088 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  1157837  SE  RCT/PNBE      THE CLAIM HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED FOR RS 1026493 AND PAID VIDE CHEQUE NO 658967 DATED 17.11.2005 AND EN CASHED IN NOV 2005 AND FS FILLED IN BEFORE THE HONOURABLE RCT/PATNA BENCHES ON 26.5.10  30/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 315  OC/43/2003  2071000089 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  767806  SE  RCT/PNBE      PAYMENT OF RS 4232373 VIDE CHEQUE NO 669076 DTD 25.01.06 HAS BEEN MADE IN FULL AND FINAL SELLELMENT OF THE CASE BUT STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA HAS OBJECTED AND DEMANDED BALANCE CLAIMED AMOUNT OF RS 767806/- WHICH IS NOT PAYABLE AS THE MATERIAL WAS FOUND SHORT.  30/Aug/2010  No  No  No  No
 316  OA/32/2007  2071000090 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  211626  SE  Case Settled by RCT BHUBANESWAR on 27-DEC-10 in favour of Party      M/S FCI FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING REFUND OF RS 211626 DUE ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT BY THE RAILWAY FOR THE CONSIGNMENT WHICH WAS BOOKED ON 31.10.98 & 03/11.09.98 UNDER INVOICE NO 06/10 RR NO B754550 TO B 754554 FROM KESINGA TO CUTTACK. APPLICANT ALLEGATION WAS THAT THOUGH THE CONSIGNMEMT WAS CARRIED IN A SHORTER ROUTE THAT IS VIA TITLAGARH SAMBALPUE TALCHAR CUTTUCK DISTANCE BEING 480 KMS THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED FOR A LONGER ROUTE FOR DISTANCE OF 661 KMS. HENCE THE CLAIM APPLICATION WAS MADE BY M/S FCI FOR ALLEGED REFUND OF OVER CHARGES COLLECTED. THIS RAILWAY DEFENDED THE SUIT TAKING THE PLEA 1) ON LIMITATION GROUND , 2) THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED AS PER RLY BOARD CIRCULAR. NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN RCT/BBS BENCH  11/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 317  OA/36/2007  2071000094 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  693612  SE  Case Settled by RCT BHUBANESWAR on 27-DEC-10 in favour of Party      M/S FCI ADMINISTRATION FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS BENCH CLAIMING ALLEGED REFUND OF EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT AMOUNTING RS 693612 RELATED WITH THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED EX RAIPUR STORE DEPOT TO JEYPORE CONTAINING 30 BCN WAGONS OF RICE.INVOICE NO 4 TO 6 RR NO 93916 TO 93918 DATED 17.02.96 APPLICANTS ALLEGATION WAS THAT THIS RAILWAY COLLECTED RS 693612 THAT IS DIVERSION CHARGES, DEMUR-RAGE CHARGES AND EXCESS FREIGHT WHICH WAS ILLEGAL AND NOT AS PER RULE. THE RAILWAY DEFENDED THE SUIT MAINLY ON THE LIMITATION GROUND AND THE AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED AS PER RULES NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN RCT/BBS/BENCH FOR DISPOSAL.  19/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 318  OA/37/2007  2071000095 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  58261  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S FCI ADMN. FILED THE SUIT IN RCT/BBS CLAIMING REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT AMOUNTING RS 58261 THEIR ALLEGATION WAS THAT THOUGH THEY WERE ELEGIBLE FOR A LOWER RATE OF FREIGHT FOR CARRIAGE OF FOOD GRAINS UNDER THE RULES BUT RLY CHARGED AND COLLECTED HIGHER RATE OF FREIGHT. THIS RAILWAY DEFENDED THE CASE TAKING THE PLEAS THAT THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE FREIGHT WAS CHARGED CORRECTLY AS PER CIRCULAR OF RAILWAY BOARD .SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS FOR RS 58261 PLUS COST PLUS INTEREST LATER DECREE HOLDER M/S FCI ADMN. FILED EXECUTION PETITION IN RCT/BBS VIDE NO 16/2008 DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF THE DECRETAL AMOUNT. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT /BBS THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK. WHICH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL HONOURABLE HIGH COURT ORDERED TO DEPODITE THE ENTAIR DECRETAL AMOUNT ALONG WITH THE COST AND INTEREST IN RCT/BBS TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDING OF THE EXECUTION CASE .AS PER ORDER THIS RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 73982 IN RCT/BBS NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK.  25/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 319  OA/39/2007  2071000097 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  75037  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S FCI ADMINISTRATION FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/BBS BENCH CLAIMING REFUND OF RS 75037 AS EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT CHARGES FOR A CONSIGNMENT OF RICE BOOKED FROM KESINGA TO JEYPORE. THIS RAILWAY DEFENDED THE CASE TAKING THE PLEA THAT THE APPLICATION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE CLAIM OF DIFFERENTIAL FREIGHT AGAINST THE SHORTEST ROUTE IS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION AND ENQUIRY BUT THE RELEVANT RECORDS/ MATERIALS ARE NOT TRACEABLE BECAUSE OF DELAY.LATER RCT/BBS BENCH DECREED THE CASE FOR RS 75037 ALONGWITH INTERESTS AT THE RATE OF 7 PERCENT PLUS COST OF RS 3200 .BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE RCT/BBS BENCH THIS RAILWAY FILED AN APPEAL IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK.SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPLICANT FILED EXECUTION PETITION DUE TO NONSATISFACTION OF THE DECREETAL AMOUNT. WHILE ADJUDICATION THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE DECREETAL AMOUNT ALONGWITH INTERESTS TO RCT/BBS BENCH TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S FCI ADMN.AS PER ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK THIS RAILWAY DEPOSITED RS 93306 IN RCT/BBS BENCH .NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK  25/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 320  OA/42/2007  2071000100 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  15126  SE  RCT/BBS      M/S FCI ADMN.FILED THE SUIT CLAIMING REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT AMOUNTING RS 15126.APPLICANTS ALLEGATION WAS THAT THOUGH THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED FOR LONGER ROUTE AND THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED FOR LONGER ROUTE. BUT ACTUALLY THE CONSIGNMENT WAS CARRIED IN SHORTER ROUTE.THE CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED SHORT OF DESTINATION AT BBS.THIS RLY DEFENDED THE CASE BY TAKING THE PLEAS THAT THE CASE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE DELIVERY AT SHORT OF DESTINATION WAS ALLOWED AS PER REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT AND NOT FOR RLYS OWN CONSTRAINTS. THE FREIGHT WAS COLLECTED CORRECTLY AS PER CIRCULAR OF RLY BOARD. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SUIT WAS DECREED BY RCT/BBS BENCH FOR RS 15126 PLUS COST PLUS INTERESTS.LATER M/S FCI ADMN FILED EXECUTION PETITION IN RCT/BBS BENCH NO 20/2008 DUE TO NON SATISFACTION OF THE DECREETAL AMOUNT. BEING AGGREIVED BY THE ORDER OF RCT/BBS BENCH THIS RLY FILED AN APPEAL IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTACK VIDE NO FAO 339/2008 .WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT HONOURABLE HIGH COURT ORDERED TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE DECREETAL AMOUNT ALONGWITH THE COST AND INTEREST TO RCT/BBS BENCH TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY M/S FCI ADMN. THIS RLY DEPOSITED RS 19561 ON 08/01/2010 IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK. NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN HONOURABLE HIGH COURT CUTTUCK FOR DISPOSAL.  31/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 321  OA/101/2006  2071000115 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  54385  SE  Case Settled by RCT BHUBANESWAR on 28-JAN-11 in favour of Party      M/S. B.P.C.L. FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN R.C.T./BBS CLAIMING COMPEMSATION OF RS.54385/- DUE TO ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF 2872 LTS. OF HSD BOOKED FROM HALDIA TO ROURKELA VIDE INVOICE NO.129, R/R. NO.C432427 DATED 15/17.05.2004. WRITTEN REPLY WAS FILED BY THIS RAILWAY THROUGH RAILWAY ADVOCATE OF RCT/BBS BENCH TAKING THE PLEAS THAT 1. THE CONSIGNMENT ARRIVED AT DESTINATION STATION WITHOUT TOP SEAL THOUGH THE BOTTOM SEAL WAS INTACT. ALL NUTS AND BOLTS WERE TIGHTLY FIXED AND INTACT.THE UPPER LID WAS CLOSED PROPERLY. THERE WAS NO LEAKAGE FOUND IN THE TANK WAGON VIDE NO.CR-101177. 2. THE LOADING, SEALING AND DIP MEASUREMENT WERE NOT WITNESSED BY ANY RAILWAY STAFF AND AS SUCH THE RAILWAY RECEIPT WAS ISSUED WITH QUALIFIED REMARKS AS SWA (SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED). 3. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER SAID TO CONTAIN R/R. 4. THAT NO CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE WAS OCCURRED IN TRANSIT PERIOD OF THE CONSIGNMENT. 5. THE TOP SEAL MIGHT HAD BEEN CUT AND DROPPED DUE TO JERKING OF THE TANK WAGON DURING ITS TRANSIT PERIOD. 6. AS PER RAILWAY BOARDS CIRCULAR VIDE NO. TC/111/3089/74/1/ DATED 16.11.1976, PARA 4A WHEN BOTH SEALS OF THE TANK WAGON, TOP AND BOTTOM ARE FOUND MISSING BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF LEAKAGE AND MANHOLE IS FOUND DULY CLOSED WITH NUTS AND BOLTS, THEN IN SUCH CASES, THE CLAIM WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE. S.E.RAILWAY CLAIMS OFFICE CORRECTLY REPUDIATED THE APPLICANTS CLAIM FOR THE ABOVE REASONS VIDE THEIR LETTER NO.WL/POL/CH/MDCG/ROU/1070402097/DKS/04/05 DATED 01.08.2006 NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING FOR DISPOSAL IN RCT/BBS BENCH.  13/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 322  OA/27/2009  2071000126 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  1671496  SE  RCT/BPL      THE APPLICATION IS MISCONCEIVED AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE NEITHER THE FORWARDING STATION DSEY/SAIL NOR THE DESTINATION STATION BSPC SDG /BIA LIES WITH IN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF OF SE.RLY THAT NOTICE UNDER SEC 106 DATED 6.11.08 HAS BEEN SERVED ON S.E.C. RLY.AS PER SECTION 107 CLAIM APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON S.E.RAILWAY SINCE NO NOTICE HAVE BEEN SERVED ON S.E.RLY. FURTHER MORE THE CA IS PALPABLY BARRED BY LAW OF LIMITATION ( SEC 17(2)).THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED ON 23.07.06 WHERE AS CA HAS BEEN FILED ON 06.08.09.  13/Sep/2010  No  No  No  No
 323  OA/3/2008  2071000134 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  189992  SE  RCT/SC      M/S SAIL FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/SC CLAIMING REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT FOR THE CONSIGNMENT CHARGED AT WAGON LOAD RATE EX VSKP PORT TO BHILAI STEEL PLANT SDG CONTAINING 30 WAGONS OF SULPHUR VIDE RR NO 1) 28093 DATED 4.10.04 AND 28 WAGONS OF COOKING COAL VIDE RR NO 29151 DATED 5.10.04 THOUGH THEY INDENTED TRAIN LOAD RATE.THIS RAILWAYS DEFENDED THE SUIT BY TAKING THE PLEA THAT IN APPLICANT IS PUT TO STRICT PROOF OF SERVICE OF VALID CLAIM NOTICE DATED 07/13.12.04 U/S 106 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989, 2) THAT THE BENIFIT OF TRAIN LOAD CAN ONLY BE GRANTED WHEN THE CANSINOR(S) INDENTS FOR STANDARD RAKE SIZE THOUGH FOR MORE THAN ONE COMMODITIES, BOOKED IN THE SAME RAKE BUT NOT CLUBBING UP OF DIFFERENT INDENTS FOR FORMATION OF STANDARD RAKE SIZE TO GET TRAIN LOAD CLASS RATE. NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN RCT/SC BENCH.  04/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 324  OA/2/2008  2071000135 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  123257  SE  RCT/SC      M/S SAIL FILED THE ABOVE SUIT IN RCT/SC CLAIMING REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT FOR THE CONSIGNMENT CHARGED AT WAGON LOAD RATE THOUGH THEY INDENTED TRAIN LOAD RATE BOOKED EX VSKP TO ROURKELA CONTAINING 30 BOX N WAGONS OF SULPHER VIDE RR NO 364716 DATED 18.08.2004 AND 28 BOX N WAGONS CONTAINING COOKING COAL VIDE RR NO 364579 DATED 18.08.04 SUBMITTED TWO SEPARATE INDENTS FOR EACH ITEMS AND REQUESTED FOR FORMATION OF STANDARD RAKE SIZE OF 58 BOX N WAGONS BY CLUBBING OF THESE TWO INDENTS TO GET TRAIN LOAD CLASS RATE .THIS RAILWAYS PLEA WAS THAT IN TERMS OF PARA 2.1(A) AND 2.4 OF THIS OFFICE SPECIAL CIRCULAR NO NI.RA.41/RATES/IA/G/PT/V/CONT.2 DATED 07.09.1998.(S.NO73(C)98) BENEFIT OF TRAIN LOAD RATE CAN ONLY BE GRANTED WHEN THE CONSIGNOR(S) INDENTS FOR STANDARD RAKE SIZE THOUGH FOR MORE THAN ONE COMMODITIES, BOOKED IN THE SAME RAKE . NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN RCT/SC BENCH.  04/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 325  OA/5/2008  2071000136 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  121219769  SE  Case Settled by RCT SECUNDERABAD on 07-JUL-10 in favour of Party      M/S RINL ADMN FILED THE ABOVE SUITIN RCT/SC/BENCH CLAIMING COMPENSATION AMOUNTING RS 121219769 DUE TO NON DELIVERY OF 1578 WAGONS CONT COAL BOOKED FROM VARIOUS PLACES TO VSKP SDG DURING THE PERIOD OF 01.04.1996 TO 31.03.2003 THIS RAILWAY IS DEFENDING THE CASE BY TAKING THE GROUND OF LIMITATION AND ALSOSTATING THE FACTS THAT PROCESS OF SETTLEMENT IS GOING ON WITH THE RINL ADMN BY MATCH ADJUSTMENT THAT IS THE 1383 WAGONS WERE MATCH ADJUSTED WITH THEM . ONE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RAILWAY HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED ON 21.02.2009 STATING ABOVE FACTS IN RCT/SC /BENCH. NOW THE CASE IS PENDING IN RCT /SC/BENCH  06/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 326  OA/8/2008  2071000138 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  128922  SE  RCT/SC      M/S SAIL FILED THE SUIT CLAIMING REFUND OF ALLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION OF FREIGHT WHICH WAS CHARGED AT WAGON LOAD RATE THOUGH THEY INDENTED FOR TRAIN LOAD RAKE FOR THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED EX-VSKP PORT TO ROURKELA STEEL PLANT SIDING CONTAINING 116 WAGONS OF COOKING COAL VIDE RR NO 429366 AND 429373 DT. 2.12.2004 AND 04.12.2004 RESPECTIVELY. THIS RAILWAY FILED WRITTEN REPLY BY TAKING THE PLEAS 1. THAT THE SAID CONSIGNMENT WAS CHARGED CORRECTLY AT THE FORWARDING STATION BASED ON THE NORMS LET DOWN FOR THE PURPOSE SINCE THE CONSIGNMENT BOOKED WERE NOT STANDARD RAKE FOR AVAILING TRAIN LOAD BENEFIT. 2. TO STRICT PROOF OF SERVICE OF VALID CLAIM NOTICE DT. 31/12/2004 UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989. NOW THE SUIT IS PENDING IN RCT/SC BENCH.  05/Oct/2010  No  No  No  No
 327  TA/873/1997  2080000353 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  117951  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF WIRE ROADS COILS THE RINL FILED AN APPLICATON BEFORE RCT GZB WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF RAILWAY ON 29.3.2006 RINL HAVE FILED AN APPEAL. THE APPLICANT FAILED TO ESTABLISHED THE ACTUAL LOADING AND DESPATCH OR CONSIGNMENT. WHAT WAS LOADED DELIVERED AT DESTINATION STATION . THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVE SHORTAGE. DELIVERY EFFECTED WITHOUT ANY REMARKS IN DELIVERY BOOKS. SAID TO CONTAIN AND SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED PLEAS OF RAILWAY WAS ACCEPTED BY RCT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 328  TA/893/1997  2080000355 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  323066  WR  HC/ALD      THE IS A CASE OF NON DELIVERY OF ONE WAGON CONTAINING PIGIRON WHICH WAS PARTLY DECREED ON 22.3.2006 BY RCT GZB. THE APPLICANT CLAIM WAS FOR RS.323066. HOWEVER RCT GZB HAS PARTLY DECREED THE CASE AGINST RAILWAY FOR RS. 277013 WITH 6% INTEREST WHICH WAS SATISFIED AS FULL AND FINAL SATISFACTION OF DECREE. APPLICANT HAVE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST RCTS ORDER DATED 22.3.2006 FOR ENHANCEMENT WHICH IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GROUND THAT FULL AND FINAL SATISFACTION OF RCTS ORDER. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE DECREE WAS PASSED AS PER BEEJUCK RATE.  11/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 329  TA/167/1989  2080000486 BHEL  505684  WR  Case Settled by RCT AHMEDABAD on 10-JUN-15 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE CONSIGNMENT WAS DAMAGED DUE TO FIRE FOR WHICH MJE WAS CONDUCTED. AS PER FINDING CP 100 THE CAUSE OF FIRE CAN NOT BE DEFINITELY DETERMINABLE AND HANCE NO INDIVIDUAL IS RESPONSIBLE. THEREFORE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE SEC. 73I OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT. 1890. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED AT PRIVATE SIDING AND RR WAS ISSUED AS SAID TO CONTAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING FREIGHT AND SAME WAS DELIVERED AT THEIR SIDING. HENCE RAILWY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AS PER SECTION 94 OF THE INDIAN RAILWAY ACT. 1989. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN DUE CARE AS PRUDENT CARRIER TO CARRY THE GOODS AND ALSO DUE CARE WAS TAKEN TO EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE. AS SUCH RAILWAY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE UNDER SECTION 73 OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT. 1890 SECTION 93 OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT. 1989 FOR CLAIM.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 330  OC/345/1991  2080000504 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  37985  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD on 06-FEB-17 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADEDUNDER L CONDITION I.E. LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE DONE BY THE PARTY AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. PRIVATE PANCHANAMA WAS MADE BY WITHOUT INTIMATING RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AFTER REQUEST OF REWEIGHMENT WAS REGRETTED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION UNDER SECTION 79 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 AND SUB RULE C OF RULE 1744 OF INDIAN RAILWAY COMMERCIALMANUAL VII BOOKS AND TARIFF BEING NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REWEIGHMENT. CONSIGNMENTS WERE DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE OF PARTY. AT THE TIME OF TAKING DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT ANY DEFICIENCY. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION AS THE RAILWAY HAS NOT WITNESSED ANY SHORTAGE. THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY SHORTAGE SHORT DELIVERY DECIDED BY THE PRIVATE SURVEYORS. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TAKEN DUE CARE AND FORESIGHT IN THE CARRIAGE OF CONSIGNMENT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 331  OC/246/1991  2080000522 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  31109.99  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD on 22-FEB-17 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADEDUNDER L CONDITION I.E. LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE DONE BY THE PARTY AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. PRIVATE PANCHANAMA WAS MADE BY WITHOUT INTIMATING RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AFTER REQUEST OF REWEIGHMENT WAS REGRETTED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION UNDER SECTION 79 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 AND SUB RULE C OF RULE 1744 OF INDIAN RAILWAY COMMERCIALMANUAL VII BOOKS AND TARIFF BEING NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REWEIGHMENT. CONSIGNMENTS WERE DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE OF PARTY. AT THE TIME OF TAKING DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT ANY DEFICIENCY. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION AS THE RAILWAY HAS NOT WITNESSED ANY SHORTAGE. THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY SHORTAGE SHORT DELIVERY DECIDED BY THE PRIVATE SURVEYORS. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TAKEN DUE CARE AND FORESIGHT IN THE CARRIAGE OF CONSIGNMENT.  11/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 332  OC/381/1993  2080000529 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  33952  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD on 06-FEB-17 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADEDUNDER L CONDITION I.E. LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE DONE BY THE PARTY AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. PRIVATE PANCHANAMA WAS MADE BY WITHOUT INTIMATING RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION, AFTER REQUEST OF REWEIGHMENT WAS REGRETTED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION UNDER SECTION 79 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 AND SUB RULE C OF RULE 1744 OF INDIAN RAILWAY COMMERCIALMANUAL VII BOOKS AND TARIFF BEING NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REWEIGHMENT. CONSIGNMENTS WERE DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE OF PARTY. AT THE TIME OF TAKING DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT ANY DEFICIENCY. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION AS THE RAILWAY HAS NOT WITNESSED ANY SHORTAGE. THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY SHORTAGE SHORT DELIVERY DECIDED BY THE PRIVATE SURVEYORS. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TAKEN DUE CARE AND FORESIGHT IN THE CARRIAGE OF CONSIGNMENT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 333  OC/347/1991  2080000530 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  58731  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD on 06-FEB-17 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADEDUNDER L CONDITION I.E. LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE DONE BY THE PARTY AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. PRIVATE PANCHANAMA WAS MADE BY WITHOUT INTIMATING RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AFTER REQUEST OF REWEIGHMENT WAS REGRETTED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION UNDER SECTION 79 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 AND SUB RULE C OF RULE 1744 OF INDIAN RAILWAY COMMERCIALMANUAL VII BOOKS AND TARIFF BEING NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REWEIGHMENT. CONSIGNMENTS WERE DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE OF PARTY. AT THE TIME OF TAKING DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT ANY DEFICIENCY. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION AS THE RAILWAY HAS NOT WITNESSED ANY SHORTAGE. THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY SHORTAGE SHORT DELIVERY DECIDED BY THE PRIVATE SURVEYORS. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TAKEN DUE CARE AND FORESIGHT IN THE CARRIAGE OF CONSIGNMENT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 334  OC/348/1991  2080000532 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  47238  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD on 06-FEB-17 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADEDUNDER L CONDITION I.E. LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE DONE BY THE PARTY AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. PRIVATE PANCHANAMA WAS MADE BY WITHOUT INTIMATING RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AFTER REQUEST OF REWEIGHMENT WAS REGRETTED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION UNDER SECTION 79 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 AND SUB RULE C OF RULE 1744 OF INDIAN RAILWAY COMMERCIALMANUAL VII BOOKS AND TARIFF BEING NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REWEIGHMENT. CONSIGNMENTS WERE DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE OF PARTY. AT THE TIME OF TAKING DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT ANY DEFICIENCY. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION AS THE RAILWAY HAS NOT WITNESSED ANY SHORTAGE. THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY SHORTAGE SHORT DELIVERY DECIDED BY THE PRIVATE SURVEYORS. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TAKEN DUE CARE AND FORESIGHT IN THE CARRIAGE OF CONSIGNMENT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 335  OA/37/2001  2080100025 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  96384  WR  HC/JAI      THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE. THE CONSIGNMENT REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN TRANSIT TIME WITHOUT INTERFERENCE ENROUTE. NO SHORTAGE FOUND. THE WEIGHMENT MADE BY PRIVATE SURVEYOR ON PRIVATE WEIGH BRIDGE NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 336  TA/911/1997  2080200183 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  75967  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF WIRE ROADS COILS THE RINL FILED AN APPLICATON BEFORE RCT GZB WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF RAILWAY ON 29.3.2006 RINL HAVE FILED AN APPEAL. THE APPLICANT FAILED TO ESTABLISHED THE ACTUAL LOADING AND DESPATCH OR CONSIGNMENT. WHAT WAS LOADED DELIVERED AT DESTINATION STATION . THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVE SHORTAGE. DELIVERY EFFECTED WITHOUT ANY REMARKS IN DELIVERY BOOKS. SAID TO CONTAIN AND SENDERS WEIGHT ACCEPTED PLEAS OF RAILWAY WAS ACCEPTED BY RCT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 337  TA/1060/1997  2080200228 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  17100  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 338  TA/1061/1997  2080200229 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  10100  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 339  TA/1062/1997  2080200232 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  7100  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD on 03-JUL-12 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 340  TA/1064/1997  2080200233 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  15600  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD on 03-JUL-12 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 341  TA/1075/1997  2080200243 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  13400  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD on 03-JUL-12 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 342  TA/1076/1997  2080200245 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  7110  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 343  TA/1074/1997  2080200246 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  8900  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD on 03-JUL-12 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 344  TA/1063/1997  2080200248 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  17800  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD on 03-JUL-12 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 345  TA/1145/1997  2080200333 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  12560  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 346  TA/1187/1997  2080200372 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  10400  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 347  TA/1212/1997  2080200407 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  22500  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 348  TA/1213/1997  2080200408 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  12600  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 349  TA/1214/1997  2080200409 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  10350  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 350  TA/1215/1997  2080200410 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  17050  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 351  TA/1216/1997  2080200412 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  16200  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 352  TA/1217/1997  2080200413 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  21600  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDISNG. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICNT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 353  TA/1218/1997  2080200416 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  13500  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BASED ON REWEIGHMENT BY THE APPLICANT AT THEIR OWN WEIGH BRIDGE. THE CONSIGNMENT LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING. THE LOADING SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS WERE NOT CHECKED AND NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT. THE WEIGHMENT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. THE WEIGHMENT OF CONSIGNMENT WAS DONE BY APPLICANT AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RAILWAY PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AS TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE WS FILED BY THE RAILWAY AND AWARDED COMPENSATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF THE RAILWAYS.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 354  TA/1248/1997  2080200452 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  81186  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 355  TA/1250/1997  2080200454 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  81220  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  13/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 356  OA/354/1999  2080200462 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  196964  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS CASE OF SORT DELIVRY OF 9736 LTRS. OF MOTOR SPIRIT. THE CASE IS CONTESTED ON THE GRONDS. 1. PROTECIE REMARKS IN THE RR SUC AS SIAD TO ONAIN SWA.L. LOADING IN IO SDG. LOADING NO SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. DESCRIPTION OF ONSIGNMENT AS DELARED BY THE ONSIGNOR IN FORWARDING NOTE. 2. EVEN THE WAGON ARRIVED WITH TOP AND BOTTOM SEAL BROKEN MANWHOLE COVER WAS INTACT AND IN CLOSED CONITION WITH NUTS AND OLTS TIGHT AND HERE BEING NO SIGN O LEAKAGE. 3. THE ONUS OF PROVING CORRCT QUANTITY LOADED LIES ON HE OWNER.  13/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 357  MISC/20/2000  2080200475 I.B.P COMPANY LIMITED  475873  WR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 12-DEC-14 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF NON DELIVERY OF HIGH SPEED DIESEL OIL AGAINST RCT GZB. THE CASE IS CONTESTING ON THE GROUND OF MISDECLARATION OF COMMODITY UNDER SECTION 102 A OF RAILWLAY ACT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 358  TA/1292/1997  2080200493 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  5800  WR  HC/ALD      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 359  TA/1293/1997  2080200495 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  19200  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD on 03-JUL-12 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 360  TA/1294/1997  2080200497 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  14200  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD on 03-JUL-12 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON. THE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE PANCHANAMA DRAWN BY PARTY WHICH IS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTYS SIDING. THE GOODS WERE ACCEPTED FOR CARRIAGE UNDER PROTECTIVE REMARKS OF RAILWLAY RECEIPT I.E. LOADED BY SENDER AT THEIR SIDING - LOADING NOT SUPERVISED AND CONTENTS NOT CHECKED NOT COUNTED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WEIGHMENT CHECKED BY RAILWAY STAFF. WAGON BOOK ON THE FASIS OF ACTUAL MACHINE TARE. THE DISPUTED CONSIGNMENTS REACHED AT DESTINATION WITHIN NORMAL TRANSIT TIME. THE OBSERVATION REPORT DID NOT FOUND ANY SHORTAGE. THE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS TAKEN UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT AND NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY. HOWEVER RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEADING OF RAILWAYS BY HOLDING THAT RAILWAY COULD NOT LEAD REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD WHICH IS PENDING.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 361  TA/1309/1997  2080200516 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  7300  WR  HC/AMD      IN THIS CASE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADEDUNDER L CONDITION I.E. LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE DONE BY THE PARTY AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. PRIVATE PANCHANAMA WAS MADE BY WITHOUT INTIMATING RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AFTER REQUEST OF REWEIGHMENT WAS REGRETTED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION UNDER SECTION 79 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 AND SUB RULE C OF RULE 1744 OF INDIAN RAILWAY COMMERCIALMANUAL VII BOOKS AND TARIFF BEING NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REWEIGHMENT. CONSIGNMENTS WERE DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE OF PARTY. AT THE TIME OF TAKING DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT ANY DEFICIENCY. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION AS THE RAILWAY HAS NOT WITNESSED ANY SHORTAGE. THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY SHORTAGE SHORT DELIVERY DECIDED BY THE PRIVATE SURVEYORS. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TAKEN DUE CARE AND FORESIGHT IN THE CARRIAGE OF CONSIGNMENT.  11/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 362  OC/0/1989  2080200617 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  139222  WR  Case Settled by RCT BHOPAL on 31-MAR-11 in favour of Party      THIS IS CIVIL SUIT BEFORE D.O. INDORE ON ACONT OF SOT DELIERY O 8271 LTRS. OF MOTOR SPIRIT. THE CASE IS ONTESTED ON THE GROUNDS. 1. THE LOADING CLAIMANT IN HIS OW SIDING. 2. LOADING NO SUPERISED BY RAILWAY SAFF. 3. TOP AND OTOM SEAL WERE DONE BY PARTY AND NOT SPERVISED BY RAILWAY.  13/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 363  OA/344/1993  2080200796 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  20512  WR  HC/JBP      THE IS A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF PIG IRON BEFORE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BHOPAL. DECREED AND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSIGNMENT RECEIVED AT DESTINATION STATION WITHIN A TRANSIT TIME IN DIRECT WAGON. NO DISTRUBANCE IN PACKING CONDITION AND NO SIGNIFICANT OF SHORTAGE OBSERVED. DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE. THE PRIVATE SURVEY REPORT MADE BY APPLICANT AT THEIR PREMISES AFTER TAKING DELIVERY. NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY. PRIVATE PANCHNAMA NOT WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT PANCHAS. THE APPLICATION BARRED BY LIMITATION.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 364  OC/16/1994  2080200816 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  23578.44  WR  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT AHMEDABAD on 06-FEB-17 in favour of Party      IN THIS CASE SHORTAGE IS BASED ON PRIVATE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF. THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADEDUNDER L CONDITION I.E. LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE DONE BY THE PARTY AND NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. PRIVATE PANCHANAMA WAS MADE BY WITHOUT INTIMATING RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AFTER REQUEST OF REWEIGHMENT WAS REGRETTED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION UNDER SECTION 79 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 AND SUB RULE C OF RULE 1744 OF INDIAN RAILWAY COMMERCIALMANUAL VII BOOKS AND TARIFF BEING NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REWEIGHMENT. CONSIGNMENTS WERE DELIVERED UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE OF PARTY. AT THE TIME OF TAKING DELIVERY UNDER CLEAR SIGNATURE THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT ANY DEFICIENCY. NO SHORTAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT DESTINATION STATION BY THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION AS THE RAILWAY HAS NOT WITNESSED ANY SHORTAGE. THEREFORE RAILWAY IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY SHORTAGE SHORT DELIVERY DECIDED BY THE PRIVATE SURVEYORS. THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TAKEN DUE CARE AND FORESIGHT IN THE CARRIAGE OF CONSIGNMENT.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 365  SUITNO/187/1985  2080200822 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  91706  WR  Case Settled by RCT BOMBAY on 31-MAR-11 in favour of Party      THIS IS A CASE OF NON-DELIVERY OF FURNANCE OIL. CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED BY CONSIGNOR HIMSELF AND WAS NOT LOADED IN THE SUPERVISION OF RAILWAY STAFF SAID TO CONTAIN RR ISSUED AS WAGON WAS SEALED BY IOC STAFF DECONTAINATION WAS NOT WITNESSED BY RAILWAY STAFF SHORTAGE OR EMPTY CERTIFICATE NOT ISSUED BY RAILWLAY CONSIGNMENT ISSUED WITHIN TRANSIT TIME.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 366  OA/30/2004  2080400093 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  22976  WR  Case Settled by RCT AHMEDABAD on 10-APR-15 in favour of Party      AS PER JOINT DIP MEASUREMENT REPORT THE CONDITION OF SEAL FOUND OK BOTTOM SEAL OK CONDITION VALVES OK TOP AND BOTTOM VALVES OK. THERE IS NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE GOODS WERE DELIVERED IN TIME. SUBJECT CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED FROM PRIVATE SIDING AND LOADING OF THE TANK WAGON WAS DONE BY THE SENDER AND SAME WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAIWLAY STAFF FIXING OF VALVES AND SEAL WAS ALSO DONE BY OFFICIALS OF SENDER. THE WAGON ARRIVED DESTINATION STATION WITH BOTH TOP AND BOTTOM SEALS INTACT WITHOUT ANY LEAKAGE. RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE USED REASONABLE FORESIGHT AND DUE CARE IN THE CARRIAGE OF THE CONSIGNMENT.  11/Jan/2011  No  No  No  No
 367  OA/7/1999  2081000004 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  6438  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999007 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 368  OA/8/1999  2081000005 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  0  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999008 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY. UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT. II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED. ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 369  OA/9/1999  2081000006 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  0  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999009 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 370  OA/10/1999  2081000007 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  7250  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999010 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 371  OA/11/1999  2081000008 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  10699  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999011 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 372  OA/12/1999  2081000009 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  0  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999012 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 373  OA/15/1999  2081000010 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  11142  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999015 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 374  OA/16/1999  2081000011 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  11142  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999016 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 375  OA/17/1999  2081000012 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  9802  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999017 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 376  OA/18/1999  2081000013 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  0  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999018 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 377  OA/19/1999  2081000014 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  12025  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999019 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 378  OA/20/1999  2081000015 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  0  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999020 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 379  OA/22/1999  2081000017 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  84443  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999022 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 380  OA/23/1999  2081000018 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  35935  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999023 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 381  OA/24/1999  2081000019 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  45957  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999024 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 382  OA/25/1999  2081000020 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  4418  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999025 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 383  OA/26/1999  2081000021 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  1152  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999026 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 384  OA/27/1999  2081000022 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  9357  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999027 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 385  OA/28/1999  2081000023 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  102350  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999028 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 386  OA/29/1999  2081000024 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  48158  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999029 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 387  OA/30/1999  2081000025 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  35912  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999030 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 388  OA/32/1999  2081000026 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  51350  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999032 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 389  OA/33/1999  2081000027 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  69047  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999033 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 390  OA/35/1999  2081000028 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  10258  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999035 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 391  OA/36/1999  2081000029 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  154472  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999036 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 392  OA/37/1999  2081000030 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  51783  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999037 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 393  OA/38/1999  2081000031 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  16296  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999038 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 394  OA/39/1999  2081000032 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  14406  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999039 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 395  OA/40/1999  2081000033 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  196739  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999040 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 396  OA/41/1999  2081000034 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  723640  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999041 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 397  OA/42/1999  2081000035 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  44294  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999042 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 398  OA/43/1999  2081000036 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  4630  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999043 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 399  OA/44/1999  2081000037 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  918939  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999044 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 400  OA/45/1999  2081000038 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  352345  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999045 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 401  OA/50/1999  2081000039 RASTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED  1600141  WR  SC/SCRT      RASHTRIYA IAPAT NIGAM LIMITED HAVE FILED CLAIM APPLICATION NO OA 1999050 IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD FOR REFUND OF UNDER CHARGES COLLECTED DUE TO REWEIGHMENT AT DESTINATION WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARGUMENT AS PER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAYS ACT 1989 REWEIGHMENT WAS DONE AT DESTINATION AND OVER WEIGHT WAS FOUND IN THE WAGONS AND ACCORDINGLY UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FROM THE PARTY UNDER SECTION 78 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW POWER TO MEASURE WEIGHT ETC NOTWITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE RR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY BEFORE DELIVERY OF THE CONSIGNMENT HAVE RIGHT TO I REMEASURE REWEIGH OR RECLASSIFIED ANY CONSIGNMENT II RECALCULATE THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES. III CORRECT ANY OTHER ERROR OR COLLECT ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO BE CHARGED ON REWEIGHMENT EXCESS WEIGHT FOUND AT DESTINATION THATIS KANKARIA HENCE UNDER CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR THE EXCEES WEIGHT AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TRAFFIC NO.41. VOL.I. AS THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT ANY CHARGES IF DUE AS PER RULE 115 OF GOODS TARIFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW THE WEIGHT DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND QUOTATION OF RATESAS GIVEN IN THE RAILWAY RECEIPT AND FORWARDING NOTE ARE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTIMATING THE RAILWAY CHARGES AND THE RAILWAY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF REMEASUREMENT RECLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND RECALCULATION OF RATESAND OTHER CHARGES AND CORRECTION OF ANY OTHER ERRORS AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AND OF COLLECTING ANY AMOUNT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OMITTED OR UNDER CHARGED. NO ADMISSION IS CONVEYEDBY THE RAILWAY RECEIPT THAT THE WEIGHT AS SHOWN THEREIN HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AS FURNISHED BY THE CONSIGNOR IS CORRECT UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THE HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER. ORDER OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE SUITABLE OFFICER OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDER TAKING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL SHOULD SORTOUT THEIR CLAIM DISPUTES BY MEETING RAILWAY OFFICIAL OF HIS AND HER LEVEL. BUT GENUINE ATTEMPT APPEARS TO BE MISSING NO PAPER OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING MET THE RAILWAY OFFICERS FOR SETTLING THEIR CASES. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISABLE THAT TO WINGS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE SUCH COMPENSATION CLAIM DEPARTMENTALLY AS FOR AS POSSIBLE BY HOLDING PERIODICAL MEETING AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. IF ALL ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTES AMICABLY FAILED THEY SHOULD KNOCK THE DOOR OF THE JUDICIARY ACCORDINGLY RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD DISMISSED THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. HIGH COURTS ORDER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD. THE APPLICANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPON HEARING PASSED FOLLOWING ORDER. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS NOT POLICY MATTER BUT COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2058.59 OF 1988 DATED 11.10.1991. THEREFORE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO RECORD FINDING ON THE ACTUAL FACTS AND DESPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES HENCE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENTS AND AWARDS ARE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH.  04/Jun/2010  No  No  No  No
 402  OA/25/2001  2090200051 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  3044926  SC  HC/HYD      1) AS PER SBH HIMMAT NAGAR BRANCH WHICH IS RLY BANKER, 21FCNS WERE PRESENTED MORE THAN TWICE, BUT THE SAME WER RETURNED UNPAID. 2) AS PER COM LETTER NO. C/283/G1/VOLX DT 19.7.96. FCI AUTHORITIES WERE INFORMED THAT IN CASE CREDIT NOTES ARE DISHONOURED 10% SURCHARGE WILL ALSO BE LEVIED BESIDES 18% PENAL INTEREST. 3) AS PER PARA NO 1209 OF INDIA RLY CODE FOR TRAFFIC 1206.7 (VI)COMML REVISED EDITION 1993 WHEN INSTRUMENT ARE HONOURED THE TRAFFIC WILL BE TREATED AS PAID TRAFFIC. OTHERWISE THE TRAFFICE WILL BE TREATED AS TO PAY  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 403  OA/89/1998  2090200115 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  50990  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 18-NOV-10 in favour of Party      1)TRANSHIPMENT IN IOC SDG. AT FORWARDING STATION ITSELF. TRANSHIPPED WAGON RECEIVED WITH BOTH SEALS TOP AND BOTTOM INTACT. NO SIGNS OF LEAKAGE ENROUTE. 2) SAID-TO-CONTAIN RR. LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. HENCE REPUDIATED THE CLAIM. 3) DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT BY RCT IN 2007. 4) APPEAL FILED BY PARTY FOR NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING RESTORATION PETITION PENDING BEFORE HIGH COURT/AP.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 404  OA/87/1998  2090200116 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  37935  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 18-NOV-10 in favour of Party      1) TRANSHIPMENT IN INDIAN OIL CORPORATION SDG. AT FORWARDING STATION BY APPLICANT COMPANY. 2) BOOKED UNDER SAID-TO-CONTAIN RR. 3) NO LEAKAGE/SHORTAGE DURING TRANSIT. 4) DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT BY RCT ON 23.3.2001. 5) PARTY FILED APPEAL BEFORE HC/AP FOR NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING RESTORATION PETION.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 405  OA/18/1983  2090200182 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA  41587  SC  HC/MBI      1)CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED ON SAID TO CONTAIN RR LOADED IN 8 WAGONS WHICH WERE JOINTLY EXAMINED BY VISUAL TEST AND FOUND FIT FOR LOADING. 2) RLY STAFF ARE NOT AWARE ACTUAL NUMBER OF BAGS LOADED AND CONDITION OF THE BAGS. THEREFORE FOR THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE AND TORN BAGS THE SENDERS ARE ALONE RESPONSIBLE. 3) THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF 12 BAGS TORN ARE DUE TO DEFECTIVE AND PACKING AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE SENDERS. REPORTING 261 BAGS IN WAGON ERC NO 19650 THE PARTY OFTEN REQUEST RLY TO DIVERT THE WAGONS TO SOME OTHER STATIONS WHICH IS REQUESTED ORALLY 4) RLY CHALLENGED THE THE PARTY TO SPECIFICALLY AND CATEGORICALLY DECLARE THAT THE ALLEGED NONDELIVERY HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN PLACE AT ANY OTHER STATION. 5) OBJECTIONS WERE FILED BEFORE RCT/BB THAT THE WAGON WAS TRANSHIPPED INTO ANOTHER WAGON HELD AT FCI/SVM 6) DECREED BY RCT/BB 7) APPEAL FILED BY RAILWAYS PENDING IN HC/MUMBAI.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 406  OA/4/1999  2090300090 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  39088  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 18-NOV-10 in favour of Party      1) TRANSHIPPED IN HPCL SDG. AT FORWARDING STATION. 2) BOOKED UNDER L CONDITION, SAID-TO-CONTAIN RR. 3) NO ABNORMAL DELAY IN TRANSIT. NO CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE ENROUTE. 4) ISSUING JCR IS NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR SHORTAGE/LEAKAGE. 5) DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT BY RCT/SC ON 12.6.02. 6) APPEAL FILED BY PARTY FOR NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING RESTORATION PETION PENDING BEFORE HC/AP.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 407  OA/42/1998  2090300095 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  36885  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 18-NOV-10 in favour of Party      1) SAID-TO-CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED AND LOADING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. 2) LOADING TOOK PLACE AT APPLICANTS SIDING. 3) CONSIGNMENT BOOKED UNDER L CONDITION. 4) NO TRANSIT DELAY. 5) SHORTAGE MIGHT BE DUE TO SHORT LOADING OF FURNACE OIL. 6) DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT BY RCT/SC. 7) IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DISMISSED. 8) PARTY FILED APPEAL IN HC/AP.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 408  OA/15/2003  2090400028 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  488119  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 12-AUG-16 in favour of Party      1)THE SAID TANK WAGON DISPATCHED FROM GNN ON 13.9.2000 AT 2.40 HRS AND ARRIVED DESTINATION AT 15.45 HRS ON THE SAME DAY. 2)THE SUBJECT WAGON RECEIVED IN THE SAME RAKE WITHOUT ANY TRANSIT DELAY. 3) THE CONSIGMENT WAS LOADED BY CONSIGNOR AT THE SIDING. 4) RAKE WAS ESCORTED BY RPF AND AT DESTINATION IT WAS FOUND THAT TWO SEALS ARE INTACT. NO LEAKAGE AS PER RPF RECORDS. 5) MERE LONE WITNESS OF DIP MEASUREMENTS BY RLY.STAFF DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANY LIABILITY. HENCE NO OPEN DELIVERY GRANTED. 6) THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE MIGHT BE DUE TO SHORT LOADING BY THE CONSIGNOR. 7) DIPS SHOWN CTCC DIPS ONLY NOT ACTUAL OBSERVED DIPS. PRESENT POSITION: OA PENDING IN RCT/SC.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 409  OA/310/1991  2090400121 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  2287651  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 20-DEC-07 in favour of Party      1) THE SUBJECT CASE FILED BEFORE RCT/SC BY IOC AND THE SAME WAS REJECTED AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2) APPLICANT COMPANY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE HC/AP. 3) HON BLE HC/AP HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY ORDER DATED 20.12.07. ORDER COPY AWAITED. CLAIM CASE ON WEB WILL BE CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 410  TA/383/1990  2090400181 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  354602  SC  HC/HYD      1) PLANTIFF HAVE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE QUANTITY LOADED INTO THE WAGONS AS THE CONSIGNMENT WAS BOOKED UNDER L CONDITION. 2) SAID TO CONTAIN RR WAS ISSUED 3) THE CONSIGNMENT BEING HIGHLY INFLAMABLE BY NATURE AND THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF THE FIRE ACCIDENT WAS ACCIDENTAL AND BEYOND THE CONTROL OF RLY ADMINISTRATION 4) ENQUIRIES REVEALED THAT THE CONTENTS OF WAGON NO CR 45530 WERE DECANTED BY THE PLANTIFF AT THEIR DEPOT AT WL AND ERRONEOUSLY CLAIMED FOR THE ENTIRE CONSIGNMENT 5) SUIT WAS DECREED IN FAVOUR OF THE PARTY VIDE ORDER DT 7.9.98. 6) APPEAL FILEDBY THE RLYS HAS BEEN ALLOWED. DIRECTED TO RESOLVE DISPUTE AS THE AS PER SETTLED PROCEDURE  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 411  OA/21/1990  2090400204 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  34507  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 28-OCT-10 in favour of Party      1) TANK WAGONS WERE RECEIVED AT DESTINATION IN SOUND CONDITION. 2) FIVE HOURS FREE TIME ALLOWED FOR UNLOADING WAS OVER BY 11.30 AM. ACCIDENT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 02.00 PM AS IT WAS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF TRANSIT. 3) AS SUCH RAILWAYS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE/LIABLE FOR THE LOSS. 4) APPLICANT DID NOT TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS OF THE SPIRIT. 5) APPLICATION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. DISMISSED ON CONTEST WITHOUT COSTS. 6) PARTY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE HC/AP. CASE DISPOSED AND ORDER COPY AWAITED.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 412  OA/22/2004  2090500009 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  14005  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 11-MAR-11 in favour of Party      1) NO TRANSIT DELAY. TOP SEALS WERE INTACT. SAID-TO-CONTAIN RR, SEALING WAS DONE BY COMPANY. LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. 2)NO CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE ENROUTE. 3) MASTER VALVE TEST WAS CONDUCTED AND FOUND FIT. BOTTOM VALVE SEALING IS MIPROPER AND USED WEAK AND SUBSTANDARD MATERIAL. APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED IN RCT WITHOUT COST ON 12.1.07. 4) APPEAL FILED BY PARTY BEFORE HC/AP IS PENDING.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 413  OA/23/2004  2090500010 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  22054  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 11-MAR-11 in favour of Party      1)WAGON WAS LOADED IN COMPANY SIDING. LOADING NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. SAID-TO-CONTAIN RR. 2) NO TRANSIT DELAY. NO CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE ENROUTE. 3) NO LEAKAGE WAS NOTICED ON ARRIVAL OF THE WAGON. 4) DIPS SHOWN ARE CTCC DIP BUT NOT ACTUAL OBSERVED DIPS. 5) MASTER VALVE TEST WAS CONDUCTED AND FOUND FIT. APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED IN RCT/SC ON 12.1.07. 6) APPEAL FILED BEFORE HC/AP BY THE PARTY IS PENDING.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 414  OA/24/2004  2090500011 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  14020  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 11-MAR-11 in favour of Party      1)CONSIGNMENT WAS LOADED IN PARTY SIDING BY THE PARTY.LOADING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. 2) SEALING WAS DONE BY THE PARTY ONLY. 3) TRAIN WAS PROPERLY EXCORTED. NO TRANSIT DELAY. NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE ENROUTE. NO CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE. 4) TOP SEALS WERE INTACT. APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED BY RCT/SC ON 12.1.07. 5) APPEAL FILED BY PARTY PENDING BEFORE HC/AP.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 415  OA/25/2004  2090500013 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  6689  SC  Case Settled by HC HIGH COURT HYDERABAD on 11-MAR-11 in favour of Party      1) BOOKED UNDER SAID-TO-CONTAIN RR. 2) LOADING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY RAILWAY STAFF. 3) TOP SEALS AND BOTTOM SEALS ARE INTACT. 4) THROUGH CAP WAS FOUND MISSING. NO SIGN OF LEAKAGE. 5) SEALING WIRE AND PLASTIC SEALS USED FOR SEALING ARE OF INFERIOR QUALITY. APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED IN RCT/SC ON 12.1.07. 6) APPEAL FILED BY PARTY PENDING IN HC/AP.  07/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 416  OC/1/2004  2100300042 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  61885  EC  Case Settled by RCT RANCHI on 15-APR-14 in favour of Party      SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE: CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 4098 LTRS. SKO FROM TANK WAGON NO. WR 96733 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 106/584334 DT. 10.01.2001, EX. NMGS TO DHN. ARGUMENT: (1)AS PER RR REMARKS, WAGON SEALED AND DIP MEASUREMENT DONE BY SENDER, LOADING NOT SUPERVISE BY RAILWAY STAFF. THEREFORE THE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED BY CCO, E.RLY. ON 22.02.2002. (2) THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE RAILWAY ACT WAS SERVED TO THE E. RLY WHEREAS THE CASE WAS FILED AGAINST ECR. MOREOVER THE CASE PERTAINS TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF ECR. SO ECR IS A MIS-JOINDER IN THIS CASE.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 417  OC/42/2005  2100500011 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  130010  EC  RCT/RNC      SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 5426 LTRS OF MS FROM TANK WAGON NO. WR 40686 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 7/139086 DT. 28-6/1.07.2002, EX. HALDIA TO DHN. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : AS PER RPF REPORT, WAGON WAS FOUND IN SEAL OK CONDITION. HENCE PARTY¿S DEMAND FOR JOINT DIP MEASUREMENT WAS REGRETTED. NO REMARKS REGARDING SHORTAGE PUT BY THE PARTY ON THE DELIVERY BOOK. THE CASE WAS TREATED AS DELIVERED UNDER DCR.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 418  OC/51/2006  2100600005 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  1105254  EC  RCT/LKO      SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FILED AGAINST NON DELIVERY OF WAGON NO. CR 1926125 BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 61/648264 DT. 23.08.03, EX. NMGS TO MGS. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : THE SUBJECT WAGON WAS PLACED AT BPCL SIDING ON 26.11.03 AND DECANTED BY THEM ON THE SAME DATE. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, DECANTATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S BPCL WHO TOOK DELIVERY ON BEHALF OF IOC LTD IS APPEARING IN FILE OF PAPERS AND THE ORIGINAL DECANTATION CERTIFICATE HAS ALSO BEEN SENT TO IOC LTD WITH THE REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE CASE.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 419  OR/1/2006  2100600012 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  4149154  EC  RCT/RNC      SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR REFUND OF OVERCHARGED ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR IN DISTANCE AGAINST BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 073635 TO 073650 (EXCEPT 073636) & 107501 TO 107515 DT. 06.11.03 TO 18.03.04 (TOTAL 30 RRS), EX. MERALGRAM (ECR) TO BOKARO STEEL CITY (CONSIGNMENT ¿ LIME STONE AND DOLOMITE). RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : (1) THE REFUND CLAIM MADE BY THE PARTY FOR THE SHORTEST ROUTE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE REPRESENTED BY M/S SAIL. AS RATIONALIZATION SCHEME (GENERAL ORDER NO. 1/2000) WAS THERE ENFORCE IN THE SHORTEST ROUTE. FREIGHT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CHARGED FOR THE SAID TRAFFIC AS PER RULE. (2) THAT THE SECTION 69 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 HAVE NO CONCERN WITH THE CASE AND RATIONALIZED ROUTE, ACTUALLY IT IS RELATED TO THE DEVIATION OF THE ROUTE OTHER THAN THE BOOKED ROUTE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. GOODS CAN BE CARRIED AND CHARGED BY A ROUTE SPECIFIED THEREIN OR BY ANY OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVE ROUTE SPECIFIED THEREIN. THE GOODS WILL BE CHARGEABLE BY THE SPECIFIED ROUTE OR ANY OF THE SPECIFIED ALTERNATIVE ROUTS OVER WHICH SUCH GOODS ARE ACTUALLY CARRIED, EVEN IF IT IS NOT THE CHEAPEST ROUTE AND FURTHER IN THE FOOT NOTE IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED ¿ ¿WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ISSUES ANY ORDER UNDER SECTION 71 (1) (B) OF THE RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 TO CARRY ANY GOODS OR CLASS OF GOODS BY SUCH ROUTE OR ROUTES AND AT SUCH RATES AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER, THE SAME WILL APPLY NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT IS STATED ABOVE.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 420  OC/10/2007  2100700014 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  95709  EC  RCT/RNC      SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE: CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE OF 23720 LTRS HSD FROM TANK WAGON NO. WR 876058, BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 100/370124 DT. 28/29.07.04, EX. HALDIA TO RANCHI ROAD. ARGUMENT: THE SUBJECT WAGON WAS DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT VIDE CP NO. 937 DT. 11.11.04. JOINT CHECKING AS STATED BY THE CLAIMANT NOT SUPERVISE/WITNESSED BY THE RAILWAY STAFF. THEREFORE JOINT CHECKING REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. THE CASE WAS REPUDIATED TREATING DCR ON 16.03.2005. MOREOVER, ECR IS ONLY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN THIS CASE WHEREAS ER IS RESPONDENT NO. 1. THE PARTY HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE CASE VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 23.02.2010.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 421  OC/33/2007  2100800010 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  565761  EC  RCT/RNC      SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE: CLAIM FOR NON DELIVERY OF TANK WAGON NO. CR 102894 CONTG. HSD BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 19/370390 DT. 22.11.2004, EX. HALDIA TO RANCHI ROAD. ARGUMENT: THE SUBJECT CONSIGNMENT WAS DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE UNDER CLEAR RECEIPT ON 08.04.05 VIDE CP NO. 975. HENCE CLAIM IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND THE CLAIMANT HAS BEEN ADVISED TO WITHDRAW THE CASE.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 422  OC/16/2008  2100800032 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD  564622  EC  RCT/RNC      SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR NON DELIVERY OF TANK WAGON NO. CR 48043 CONTG. HSD BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. H 23/F554518 DT. 06.06.2005, EX. VIZAG TO DHN. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : THE SUBJECT WAGON WAS DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE UNDER HIS CLEAR SIGNATURE ON 21.03.06. HENCE CLAIM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND PARTY HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE CASE.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 423  OC/2/2009  2100900004 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD  0  EC  RCT/PNBE      SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE : CLAIM FOR NON RECEIPT OF WAGON NO. CR BRN 120222 LOADED WITH RAILS BOOKED UNDER INV/RR NO. 01/621615 DT. 29.09.06, EX. BSPC TO SPJ. RAILWAYS ARGUMENT : THE MISSING WAGON NO. CR BRN 120222 WAS GOT TRANSSHIPPED IN TO WAGON NO. NR BRN 112014 AT BMY ON 04.10.06. THE T/S WAGON ARRIVED DBG ON 12.10.06 AND THE SAME WAS DELIVERED TO SE/P.WAY/CON/DBG ON 14.10.06. MOREOVER, GM/SER HAS BEEN MADE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN THIS CASE WHEREAS GM/ECR IS RESPONDENT NO. 2.  12/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 424  OA/204/2004  2010400524 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  140553  CR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 10-OCT-08 in favour of Party      CENTRAL RIALWAY IS RESPONDENT NUMBER ONE. THE CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFER TO CENTRAL RAILWAY FOR CONTEST AS PER AGREEMENT FOR ATF BETWEEN CENTRAL RAILWAY AND BPCL.  10/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 425  OA/201/2004  2010400525 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  141258  NC  RCT/GZB      CENTRAL RIALWAY IS RESPONDENT NUMBER ONE. THE CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFER TO CENTRAL RAILWAY FOR CONTEST AS PER AGREEMENT FOR ATF BETWEEN CENTRAL RAILWAY AND BPCL.  10/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 426  OA/200/2004  2010400526 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  137094  CR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 10-OCT-08 in favour of Party      CENTRAL RIALWAY IS RESPONDENT NUMBER ONE. THE CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFER TO CENTRAL RAILWAY FOR CONTEST AS PER AGREEMENT FOR ATF BETWEEN CENTRAL RAILWAY AND BPCL.  10/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 427  OA/202/2004  2010400527 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  141258  CR  Case Settled by RCT GHAZIABAD on 10-OCT-08 in favour of Party      CENTRAL RIALWAY IS RESPONDENT NUMBER ONE. THE CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFER TO CENTRAL RAILWAY FOR CONTEST AS PER AGREEMENT FOR ATF BETWEEN CENTRAL RAILWAY AND BPCL.  10/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 428  OA/203/2004  2010400528 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP LTD  140553  NC  RCT/GZB      CENTRAL RIALWAY IS RESPONDENT NUMBER ONE. THE CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFER TO CENTRAL RAILWAY FOR CONTEST AS PER AGREEMENT FOR ATF BETWEEN CENTRAL RAILWAY AND BPCL.  10/May/2010  No  No  No  No
 429  OA/223/2006  2130900014 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  280000  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 430  OA/224/2006  2130900015 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  287471  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 431  OA/225/2006  2130900016 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  230485  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 432  OA/226/2006  2130900017 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  282904  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 433  OA/227/2006  2130900018 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  287271  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 434  OA/228/2006  2130900019 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  286910  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 435  OA/229/2006  2130900020 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  291056  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 436  OA/230/2006  2130900021 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  211121  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 437  OA/231/2006  2130900022 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  211934  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 438  OA/232/2006  2130900023 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  283284  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 439  OA/233/2006  2130900024 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  291737  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 440  OA/234/2006  2130900025 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  279238  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 441  OA/235/2006  2130900026 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  275793  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 442  OA/236/2006  2130900027 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  284406  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 443  OA/237/2006  2130900028 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  284766  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010  No  No  No  No
 444  OA/238/2006  2130900029 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED  60751  NC  RCT/GZB      THE APPLICANT COMPANY IOC DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE RAILWAY ADMINSTRATION FOR REFUND OF EXCESS FREIGHT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF RAILWAY ACT 1989.THE CASE IS BEING CONTESTED ON THE GRAOUND OF NOTICE BEING TIME BARRED.  27/Apr/2010