FAO No.4197 of 2008 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.4197 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.09.2010 **** M/s Instant Remedies Pvt. Ltd, 160, Industrial Area, Phase 2 Chandigarh through its Director . . . . Appellant VS. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi. . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Rahul Chatwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) The challenge is to order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dated 6.12.2007 by which application filed by the appellant under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short the ‘Act’) read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the claim application has been dismissed. The appellant is a private limited company. It is alleged that delay of more than one year is caused due to ill advice of an Advocate about the period of limitation. According to the appellant, the Advocate had advised them that the period of limitation is 5 years from the date of booking of the consignment whereas the period of limitation is 3 years. FAO No.4197 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - The Tribunal did not agree with the reasons assigned in the application and dismissed it. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits and this Court may take a liberal view to condone the delay. In this regard he has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Versus Mst.Katiji and others” AIR 1987 SC 1353 and “State of Nagaland Versus Lipok AO & Ors.” 2005(3) SCC 752. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. No doubt that merit of the case is one of the reasons given by the Supreme Court to be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay but in the present case allegation is levelled by the appellant against the Advocate, who had given them wrong advice about the period of limitation. The name of the Advocate is neither disclosed in the application nor during the course of arguments despite repeated enquiries made by the Court from the learned counsel for the appellant. Apparently, the story coined by the appellant is concocted in order to shift the burden upon the Advocate, who is not present before the Court to contest the allegation which has been made against him by the appellant. The conduct of the appellant is certainly deplorable. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain the reason given by learned counsel for the appellant because it has no foundation, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 JUDGE Vivek