ash 1 208fa-688.96oj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.688 OF 1996 Union of India. .. Appellant Vs M/s. Kashinath Ganpat Jagalo. .. Respondent -- Shri A.N. Samant for the Appellant. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. Office noting shows that the Respondent is served personally. None appears for the Respondent. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1992 passed by the learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai. The compensation of Rs. 37,277/- with interest has been granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that in Writ Petition No. 4455 of 1992, this Court by an order dated 21st October, 1992 granted stay of the proceedings of the Application ( T.A. No.1274 of 1990 ) and though the said fact was brought to the notice of the learned Member of the Tribunal, on 22nd October, 1992, the Tribunal proceeded to hear and decide the application. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned ash 2 208fa-688.96oj order which is passed in violation of the order of stay deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal had earlier passed an order directing the Appellant to produce relevant file. The Tribunal has referred to its earlier order passed on 23rd September, 1992 directing that if file was not produced within a period of one week, defence of the Appellant will be struck out. The Tribunal has noted that the file was not produced and, therefore, the defence of the Appellant was struck out. 3. I have perused the record of the Tribunal. On page 127 of the record, there is a letter dated 22nd October, 1992 addressed by the Advocate for the Appellant to the Registrar of the Railway Claims Tribunal in which the Advocate for the Appellant has stated that Writ Petition No.4455 of 1992 has been fled by the Appellant and on 21st October, 1992 this Court ( Coram : V.P. Tipnis, J ) issued rule and stayed the proceedings of the T.A. No.1274 of 1990. The letter records that the official writ is being served on the members of the Tribunal by the office of this Court. There is an endorsement of the Registrar that the said letter was received at 12.10 p.m. on 22nd October, 1992 after the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant made a statement before this Court that ash 3 208fa-688.96oj when the case was called out before the Tribunal, the fact that the stay was granted by this Court was brought to the notice of the learned Member of the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has produced a photocopy of the writ issued by this Court on 23rd October, 1992 showing that on 21st October, 1992 in Writ Petition No.4455 of 1992, this Court stayed the proceedings of the case before the Tribunal. The order of stay was passed on 21st October, 1992 and the impugned judgment and order has been passed on 22nd October, 1992. Thus, the case was decided after the proceeding of the case was stayed by this Court. Only on this ground, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside and the order of remand will have to be passed. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER: (a) The impugned judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1992 is quashed and set aside. (b) The Case T.A.No.1274 of 1990 is restored to the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. ash 4 208fa-688.96oj (c) The Railway Claims Tribunal will proceed with the Application subject to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4455 of 1992. (d) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (e) The Appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )