Bombay High Court

SMT. AMRIN BEGUM D/O INAYATUULA SHAIKHversusUNION OF INDIA THORUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER,

Decided: 23 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

Holding

The Court held that the delay could not be condoned as the reasons advanced did not constitute sufficient cause, and dismissed the application and the appeal.

Summary

Smt. Amrin Begum filed an appeal against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal but failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period, resulting in a 268‑day delay. She sought condonation of the delay, citing poverty, illiteracy and desertion by her husband as reasons. The Court held that these circumstances did not amount to "sufficient cause" for condoning such a long delay, especially since the original claim had been filed timely. Consequently, the civil application for condonation was dismissed, and the appeal itself was also dismissed. The decision underscores that personal hardship alone cannot justify procedural delays when the claim was originally filed within time.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 268 days in filing an appeal can be condoned on the ground of poverty, illiteracy and desertion.
Whether the reasons pleaded constitute ‘sufficient cause’ under the procedural law governing appeals from the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Subjects

delay condonation
sufficient cause
Railway Claims Tribunal
civil appeal
procedural law
poverty
illiteracy

Judgment

ppn                                 1                             911.fast-9183.16.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2843 OF 2016
                                     IN
                     FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.9183 OF 2016


Smt. Amrin Begum d/o Inayatuula Shaikh               ….Applicant/Appellant
       V/s.
Union of India through the General Manager           .…Respondent
                                   ----

None for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. T.J. Pandian a/w Mr. Gautam Modanwal for the Respondent.

                                    ----
                                    CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
                                    DATED : 23 January 2026
P.C. :

1.       None for the appellant/applicant. Matter is of 2016 and therefore,
disposed of.

2.       This application is taken out for condoning delay of 268 days in filing
the appeal before this Court to challenge the order of the Railway Claims
Tribunal. The reason given for the delay is that the appellant is a poor
person, illiterate and deserted from her husband.

3.       In my view, these reasons cannot constitute “sufficient cause” in the
facts of the present case. These reasons persist when the original claim was
made before the Railway Tribunal. The claim before the Railway Tribunal
was filed within the time prescribed under the Act. If the original claim
was filed in time and the reasons given now prevailed even at that point of
time, then the same cannot constitute “sufficient cause” for the delay of
ppn                              2                            911.fast-9183.16.doc


268 days in filing the present appeal.

4.    I am conscious that the claim is based on the social beneficial
legislation but for condoning the delay there has to be a “sufficient cause”
and for the reasons stated above, in my view, the cause shown does not
constitute “sufficient cause.”

5.    Civil Application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands
dismissed.


                                                 (JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…