BHAGWATI PRASAD PAWAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on May 25,2006

BHAGWATI PRASAD PAWAN KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

M/S S.M.C. POWER GENERATION LTD VS. DILIP BHAI PATEL [LAWS(CHH)-2020-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
M P POWER GENERATING CO LTD VS. FLOW MORE PVT LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2007-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LIMITED VS. RAVINDER ZUTSHI [LAWS(NCD)-2009-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
INDU BALA SATIJA VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2013-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT VS. UDAYA SHANKAR NEJJUR [LAWS(NCD)-2016-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JAIN ENTERPRISES [LAWS(GAU)-2008-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
SANGHA ERECTORS PVT LTD VS. LAXMI CRANES AND TRAILERS PVT LTD [LAWS(KER)-2024-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
MJRJ MEDICHEM SURGICALS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2015-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
GARG ACRYLICS LTD VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2014-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
SHRADDHA COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY, AURANGABAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. OPERA CLOTHING [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT CHAWLA VS. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2014-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
TARA SINGH JHAND S/O LATE BHAGWAN SINGH VS. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT [LAWS(NCD)-2014-9-167] [REFERRED TO]
A.P. JOS VS. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2012-10-68] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR VS. BRAHMA CITY PVT. LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2023-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
MUNEER ENTERPRISES VS. RAMGAD MINERALS AND MINING LTD [LAWS(SC)-2015-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR VS. DR. SUBROTO ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2020-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED VS. TARACHAND LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2023-6-78] [REFERRED TO]
MEERA GOYAL VS. PRITI SARAF [LAWS(DLH)-2023-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY STATIONERS VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2013-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
M.L. KATHURIA VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2013-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. VS. KOSHIKA TELECOM LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-345] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. SUBHASH CHANDER RISHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-142] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. B B ENTERPRISES [LAWS(GAU)-2009-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
LIC VS. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR METALS AND ELECTRICALS LIMITED VS. R S METALS PVT LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. KUKA RICE & GENERAL MILLS [LAWS(HRCDRC)-2007-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
L.P. KULSHRESHTHA VS. AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2014-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SPPL HOTELS PVT. LIMITED & ANR. VS. ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. DAULAT RAM INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-346] [REFERRED TO]
PADAM CHANDRA SINGHI VS. P B DESAI [LAWS(BOM)-2011-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER VS. INDIA TRADE CENTER [LAWS(GAU)-2018-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. H P STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD [LAWS(HPCDRC)-2008-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAYS VS. CHARU ENTERPRISES [LAWS(GAU)-2017-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
Y LOTHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2019-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
BEHARI LAL SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
RUGS INDIA VS. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. [LAWS(NCD)-2013-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2015-8-210] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

B. P. Singh, J. - (1.)These two appeals by special leave have been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court in MA (F). No.180 of 1996 dated May 19, 2000 and the order passed in Review Petition No.85 of 2000 dated July 28, 2000. The High Court by its judgment and order impugned dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench dated August 30, 1996 in Application No.915 of 1993. The review petition preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court was also rejected by order dated July 28, 2000.
(2.)The factual background in which the dispute arose is as follows:- Two consignments of iodised salt were booked in favour of the appellant. The first consignment consisted of 767 bags and the second 744 bags. These consignments were not delivered. The appellant, therefore, lodged two claims dated April 26, 1991 claiming the value of the said goods, namely Rs.53,264/- and Rs.51,686/- in respect of the two consignments. By letters dated April 7, 1993 (despatched in August, 1993) the Railways admitted the claims only to an extent of Rs.9, 111/- and Rs.9,032/- and enclosed two cheques in favour of the appellant for the sum of Rs.9, 111/- and Rs.9,032/- in respect of the two claims. Both the cheques were dated July 27, 1993. The letters contained the following condition:-
"In case the above offer is not acceptable to you, the Cheque should be returned forthwith to this office: failing which it will be deemed that you have accepted the offer in full and final satisfaction of your claim.

The retention of this cheque and/or encashment thereof will automatically amount to acceptance in full and final satisfaction of your above claim without reason and you will be estopped from claiming any further relief on the subject".

(3.)On receipt of two letters along with the two cheques, the appellant wrote to the Railways two identical letters of August 20, 1993 stating that the claims were placed under PROTEST and could not be accepted and that the balance amount should be remitted within 15 days. We extract below one of the letters dated August 20, 1993:-
"We regret to inform you that our above noted claim has been settled for Rs.9111/- instead of Rs.53284/- the claimed amount. The same is therefore placed under : PROTEST : and cannot be accepted. Please therefore remit the balance amount to us within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which, we shall be compelled to lodge a Civil suit against the Rly for recovery of the balance amount. Please treat this as most urgent".



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.