Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
17 judgments · newest first · showing 1–17
The appellants, the widow and son of a man who died in a railway accident on 5 June 2010, filed a compensation claim on 13 June 2014, more than three years after the accident. Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 mandates a one‑year limitation for such claims, and the Railway Claims …
The appellants, parents of the deceased railway passenger, appealed against the Railway Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of their claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. They alleged that the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger who fell from a moving local train on 22 March …
The petitioner, Shakila Iliyas Tamboli, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Railway Claims Tribunal order that refused to modify a compensation award after the co-claimant (her husband) died during the pendency of the claim. The Tribunal had originally awarded Rs.8,00,000 equally …
The petitioners, a widowed senior citizen and family, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to compel the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) to update their address in the record of OA No.1061/2014 so that a compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs, awarded on 21 December 2023, could be released. The Tribunal …
The respondent Amit Rajeshbhai Joshiar suffered severe injuries, including amputation of his left hand, after falling from a moving train at Jamnagar station while assisting his mother who held a reservation ticket. He claimed compensation of Rs 7.60 lakh under the Railway Act, and the Railway …
The deceased Sadanand Brahmane died after falling from an upper berth due to a sudden jerk in a train traveling from Bhusawal to Surat. The Railway Claims Tribunal had rejected his family's claim for compensation, holding that the incident did not qualify as an "untoward accident" under section …
The deceased, Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik, purchased a second‑class ticket for travel from Indore to Ujjain on 19 May 2017 but was allegedly pushed out of the moving train due to overcrowding, sustaining fatal head injuries. His widow and minor son filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal …
The Union of India, as railway authority, issued demand notices alleging mis‑declaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, after the consignments had been delivered. The respondents paid the demands but later sought refunds, contending that such post‑delivery notices were illegal …
The appellant, Doli Rani Saha, claimed compensation for the death of her brother who allegedly fell from a moving train in 2003. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court dismissed the claim, holding that there was insufficient proof the deceased was a bona‑fide passenger, particularly …
The Union of India (railways) charged Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) freight on the Baad‑Hisar route based on a chargeable distance of 444 km as per the old local distance table. In 2005 the railways revised the distance to 334 km, claiming the earlier figure was erroneous, and IOC sought a refund of …
Shree Shyam Agency, a sugar manufacturer, booked a consignment under a "Self" basis and retained the railway receipt, but the buyer failed to pay and the goods were delivered to a third party without authority. The agency filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation …
The appellants' husband was robbed and thrown from a moving train in 1998, resulting in his death. The appellants filed a claim for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs.4 lakh in 2007 but granted interest only in case of default. The appellants appealed, arguing that …
The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) had booked railway rakes for coal transport in 1992 and paid Rs.3,56,69,671 by mistake, a liability that the Union of India expressly admitted. RSEB filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the petition on the sole ground that an …
The case examined whether a sitting High Court judge appointed as President of a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission could continue to function as a judge. A group of advocates challenged the appointment, arguing it created a master‑servant relationship and threatened judicial independence, …
Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants claimed they were designated as Presenting Officers under Section 19(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and sought parity in pay with Junior Administrative Grade Presenting Officers (Group B). The Central Administrative Tribunal held that they were …
Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises claimed a refund of excess freight paid to Indian Railways and filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which dismissed the claim. The appellant filed a review petition under Section 18(3)(f) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, but the Tribunal …
The appellant dispatched marble slabs by rail, which were damaged in an accident, and filed a claim for Rs.1,05,000 before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal required a filing fee of Rs.2,055 under Section 16(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, but the appellant could not pay and …
