....... i.11, 17, 23, 26, 30 to 33, 36 to 44, 46 to 55, tlo 70, & 56 to 62 %18.04.2011 Present: Mr. N.K.Gupta, Adv. forthe in FAO Nos.404, 230!, 246, 472 to 475/2010, 53, 54, 56, 64, 65, 69, 70, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87,88, 89, 97,98, 99,120,121,122,123, 144,92,93,94,95, 91 & 90/2011, 393/2009, 86, Ms. Aruna Mehta, Adv. for the in FAO No.393/2009. Mr. Manoj V. George, Adv. for no.1 in FAO 404/2010, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. for the respondent in FAO Nos. 230 & 246/2010, Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Adv. for:the respondent in FAO Nos.472, 473 & 474/2010, 64 & 70/2011, Mr. J.P.Sharma, Adv. for the in FAO Nos. 53, 55/2011, 79, 81, 85, 97, 98, 99, 94, 96, 9p &t 6$/2011, Mr. Shantanu Sagar, Adv. for the ri"espcpndent(s) in FAO No. 54/2011, Mr. Amitesh Narendra, Adv. for the respondent{s) in FAO Nos.56, 84 & 87/2011, Ms. Seema Bhaduria, Adv. for Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Adv. for the respondent{s) in FAO 65/11, , Mr. P.K.Dey, Adv. for the in FAO No.69/2011, Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. fflS.pcmdent(s) in FAO No.B0/2011, Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. for the in FAO No.83, 89, 92, 93 & 95/2011, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. for thie in FAO Nos.86 & Mr. S.K.Jain, Adv. for the in FAO No.91/2011. For the reasons stated in the bp,plications, delay in filing the is condoned. CMs stand disposed of. Page 1 of 2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ,. ....... For the reasons stated in the applications, abnormal delay in filing the appeals is condoned, subject to the conditilon that appellants will not be entitiEl!d to interest for the period of delay in filing the CMs stand disposed of. The only relief which is sought !by the appellants in the present cases is the claim of interest from the date of filing ,of the petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal till the date of payment/deposit by the respondent, and which relief has lbeen denied by the impugned judgment. This praye11i is made in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tahazhathe 1!'. $arabi vs. Union of India 20@9 IVol. 7 sec 372 in which case the Supreme Court has held that an applicant willl be entitled to interest either from the date of accident or from the date of filing of the petition depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This judgmerllt of Tahazhathe (supra) case has also been by various learned sing:le of this Court. Accordingly, these appeals are alldwed to the extent that the appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum simple from the date of filing of the petition by the appellants before the Railway Claims Tribunal till the date of payment/deposit by the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment. In those cases as stated above where delay has beem GOindoned subject to interest being. not payable for the period of delay in filing of thei apJDeals, interest will not be payable for the period of delay in filing the appeals. Appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent as stated above. Appeals stand disposed of .. .. APRIL 18, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA. J. ak Page 2 of 2 ·C)