Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Railways Act, 1989

39 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSUBODH SINGH & ORS.

2011 INSC 23930 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation acquired land for a special railway project under the Railways Act, 1989. After a gazette notification of acquisition on 16‑Dec‑2008, a public notice was published in newspapers on 20‑Feb‑2009 and the compensation award was made on 8‑Feb‑2010. The landowner challenged the awar

M/S. S.K.L. CO.versusCHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER & ORS.

2015 INSC 94529 December 2015Disposed off

The appellant, M/s. S.K.L. Co., challenged a notification by the Railways that leased Front Second Class Luggage Rakes (FSLR) and Ventilated Parcel Vans (VP) to private lessees through an auction, alleging that the lease violated Sections 70 and 71 of the Railways Act, 1989 by giving undue preference and that the Railw

MAULAVI HUSSEIN HAJI ABRAHAM UMARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

2004 INSC 40929 July 2004Dismissed

The appellant, Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umari, was arrested in connection with a train attack and initially placed in police custody. An application under Section 49(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) was filed to extend his police remand beyond the statutory 30‑day limit, and the Special Court appr

UNION OF INDIAversusRADHA YADAV

2019 INSC 10929 January 2019Disposed off

In 2003 a railway passenger, Dasarath Yadav, died after his head struck a post when he leaned out of a train compartment. The Railway Claims Tribunal held he was responsible for his own death and denied compensation under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989. The High Court reversed, invoking strict liability under Se

JAMEELA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2010 INSC 54727 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased M. Hafeez was traveling on a valid ticket when he fell from a moving train and died. His family claimed compensation under the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000, deeming the death an "untoward incident". The railway appealed, arguing the death resulted from the passeng

MANIK & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2024 INSC 73425 September 2024

The case involved police officers accused of torturing a suspect, Shama @ Kalya, while in custody, leading to his death and alleged tampering with evidence. The prosecution relied on witness testimony, a fingerprint test linking an unidentified burnt body to the victim, and claims of a staged escape, while the defence

SALES TAX OFFICER KANPUR AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR

1994 INSC 52721 November 1994

Twenty-six packages of utensils were seized by a Uttar Pradesh sales tax officer because they were being transported without the required documents. The railway argued that the goods were moving from a railway godown to a city booking agency, which it claimed was part of the "Railway" under the Railways Act and therefo

JAGJIT COTTON TEXTILE MILLSversusCHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT N.R. AND ORS.

1998 INSC 19021 April 1998Dismissed

The petitioners, consignees of coal, challenged the Railway's recovery of penal charges under Rule 161‑A of the Indian Railway Conference Association (IRCA) Rules for loading wagons beyond the permissible carrying capacity. The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 161‑A was inconsistent with or ultra vires Section 53 of

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

2024 INSC 24321 March 2024Dismissed

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 the 110 km differenc

NAGARAJversusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 25021 February 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a bus driver for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, collided with a railway level‑crossing gate on 3 August 2006, breaking it. He was convicted under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the appel

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusMUKESH AND ORS.

2006 INSC 71819 October 2006Disposed off

The State of Madhya Pradesh charged three reservation clerks with abetting Suresh Shah in the illegal procurement and sale of railway tickets under Sections 143(1) and 143(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Shah was arrested with a large number of tickets and cash, but later absconded, and the clerks were convicted on the b

SHREE SHYAM AGENCYversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2012 INSC 48518 October 2012Dismissed

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 for non‑delivery, a

HINDALCO INDUSTRLES LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 39116 December 1993Dismissed

Hindalco Industries Ltd. complained that the Indian Railways continued to levy freight charges based on an inflated distance of 714 km even after a new line reduced the actual distance to 568 km. The company filed a complaint under Section 36(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking a declaration that the rates were unreas

SUBODH SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 45816 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's land was partially acquired under notifications issued under Section 20(E)(1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, and an award was made on 8 February 2010, leaving out a parcel of 0.0624 hectare. The High Court ordered compensation for the left out parcel but limited additional compensation for delay to t

KAMUKAYI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2023 INSC 54116 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, Muchamy @ Muthusamy, fell from a moving passenger train on 27 September 2014 and died on the spot. His son purchased a valid ticket for the journey and handed it to him; the incident was investigated under Rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, with F

TAHAZHATHE PURAYIL SARABI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2009 INSC 81514 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

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 interest should accrue

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusKAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL ANSARI & ORS.

2013 INSC 16214 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned two separate prosecutions arising from the July 2006 Mumbai suburban train bomb blasts. In Special Case No. 21 of 2006, the accused‑respondents sought to summon four Deputy Commissioners of Police (who had recorded confessional statements of three other accused in a later Special Case No. 4 of 2009)

NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 89513 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, land owners of about six kilometres of land in Surat, Gujarat, challenged the acquisition of 131 kilometres of land for the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor, arguing that the Competent Authority failed to comply with Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 by not passing a reasoned order after the pe

FEDERATION OF RAILWAY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2003 INSC 17813 March 2003Dismissed

The Federation of Railway Officers Association challenged the Government's decision to create seven new railway zones, alleging that the move violated Section 3 of the Railways Act, 1989 because it was not based on administrative efficiency and was driven by political and backward‑area considerations. The petitioners a

RATHI MENONversusUNION OF INDIA

2001 INSC 14013 March 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Rathi Menon, a 22‑year‑old passenger, was thrown from a train in 1996, sustaining paraplegia and loss of both an arm and a leg. She filed a claim for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 before the Railway Claims Tribunal. While the claim was pending, Rule 3(2) of the Railway Accident Compensation

K SIVARAMAN & ORS.versusP SATHISHKUMAR & ANR.

2020 INSC 18013 February 2020Dismissed

The appellants, parents and siblings of a deceased employee, claimed compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 for a fatal accident that occurred on 31 January 2008. The High Court enhanced the compensation by applying the post‑amendment monthly wage ceiling of Rs 8,000, invoking the Workmen Compensation

P.A. NARYANANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 9513 February 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's wife was assaulted and robbed on a running local train in 1981. She pulled the alarm chain, but the guard and motorman failed to stop the train, and she later died from her injuries. The Railway Board denied compensation, holding that liability arose only in railway accidents, and the High Court upheld

MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERSversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2016 INSC 40211 May 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the appeal of sixteen accused convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for a series of bomb blasts on Indian trains in December 1993. The Court held that Section 20A(1) of TADA makes prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police an absolute pre

DOLI RANI SAHAversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 6039 August 2024Disposed off

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 noting the absence o

UNION OF INDIAversusRINA DEVI

2018 INSC 4699 May 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a claim for compensation under Sections 124 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 filed by Rina Devi for the death of her husband who fell from a train while boarding. The Court clarified that compensation is payable as of the date of the accident with reasonable interest, and if that amount is

RAJNI AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 12018 October 2025

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 seeking compensation

INDIAN RAILWAYSversusWEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2026 INSC 4648 May 2026Dismissed

Indian Railways sought open access to procure 100 MW of power and claimed it is a deemed distribution licensee (DDL) under the Electricity Act, 2003, thereby exempt from cross‑subsidy surcharge (CSS) and additional surcharge. The dispute centered on whether activities under sections 11(g) and 11(h) of the Railways Act

INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOTTAYAMversusMATHEW K CHERIAN & ANR.

2025 INSC 518 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Inspector of the Railway Protection Force alleged that Mathew K. Cherian created numerous fraudulent IRCTC user IDs to procure and sell railway e‑tickets for profit, while Ramesh, an authorised railway ticketing agent, was accused of using multiple IDs to supply tickets. The central question was whether such conduc

SUMATIDEVI M. DHANWATAYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 2416 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an elderly woman, was assaulted and had valuables stolen during a mob attack on a railway train. She claimed the Railway administration failed to provide protection, constituting deficiency in service, and filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission, which awarded compensation. The

ANIL KUMAR GUPTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 4975 July 2016Disposed off

The petition arose from a tragic incident on 1 February 2011 when over two lakh candidates gathered for an ITBP recruitment drive in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, and, after the drive was postponed, many climbed onto the roof of the Himgiri Express. The train, travelling at 75 kmph, struck a low foot‑over‑bridge whose clear

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S KAMAKHYA TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC.

2025 INSC 8055 June 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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 under Sections 73 an

UNION OF INDIAversusPRABHAKARAN VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS.

2008 INSC 5775 May 2008Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a claim for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 after a bona‑fide passenger, Smt. Abja, fell onto the tracks while trying to board a moving train and was run over. The issue was whether such a fall fell within the expression “accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passe

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 11161 November 2007Dismissed

The Uttar Pradesh Jal Sansthan, created under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, supplied water and maintained sewerage for railway colonies and stations and demanded service charges from the Railways. The Union of India contended that these charges were a tax on Union property and therefore exempt under Art

U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.versusANIS AHMED

2013 INSC 3941 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether industrial/commercial electricity users could file complaints before a Consumer Forum against assessment orders under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or actions under Sections 135‑140 of the same Act. The petitioners (U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others) argued that such p

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search