M/S. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. vs Union Of India
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page 1 of 25
GAHC010273222018
2026:GAU-AS:13960
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MFA N O . 16 OF 2019
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH
EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY, GUWAHATI, MALIGAON, PIN
781011, ASSAM.
…….Appellant
VERSUS
M/S NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD 122 A,
G.S. ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI, PIN 781005,
ASSAM.
. ….. Respondent
WITH O OF
MFA N . 193 2019
M/S NUMALIGARH REFINARY LIMITED
REP. BY DIGANTA KR. BORA
CHIEF MANAGER (LOGISTICS)
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 122A G.S. ROAD,
CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-5 AND
MARKETING AND BD OFFICE AT
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 1
Page 2 of 25
NEDFI HOUSE, 4TH FLOOR, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-5 ASSAM.
………Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY,
MALIGAON, GUWAHATI- 781011.
………Respondent
: BEFORE ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Appellant : Mrs. U. Chakraborty, Senior Advocate
for the appellant in MFA No.
16/2019 and for the respondent in
MFA No. 193/2019
For the Respondent :
Ms. M. Sarma, Advocate for the
respondent in MFA No. 16/2019 and
for the appellant in MFA No.
193/2019
Date of Hearing : 25.08.2026
Date of Judgment : 18.09.2026
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 2
Page 3 of 25
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mrs. U Chakraborty, the learned Special Senior
counsel, Railways for the appellant in MFA No. 16/2019 and
for the respondent in MFA No. 193/2019 as well as Ms. M
Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent in MFA No.
16/2019 and for the appellant in MFA No. 193/2019 .
2. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of
two appeals, namely MFA No. 16/2019 as well as MFA No.
193/2019, as both the appeals arise out of the common
judgment dated 13.09.2018 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application bearing No.
OA-III-31/2016. By the said judgment, the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Guwahati Bench directed the appellant of MFA No.
16/2019, namely, the Union of India represented by the
General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, to refund a
sum of Rs. 36,18,089/-, being the excess freight charges
collected by Railways illegally due to incorrect application of
chargeable distance for goods booked and transported from
Numaligarh Sidings (NMGS) to Kartarsinghwala (KJW),
Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR) for the period 11.07.2007
to 14.03.2008.
3. The Appellant in MFA No. 16/2019, i.e., the Railways, was
also directed to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, and thereafter, after expiry of 90 days from the
date of the impugned judgment, if the decree is not
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 3
Page 4 of 25
satisfied, the interest imposed was at the rate of 9% per
annum. Along with the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.
20,556/- was directed to be paid by the appellant Railways
as application fees, and another sum of Rs. 3,000/- as legal
practitioner's fees. The Tribunal further directed the
appellant Railways to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as extra
cost to the claimants of MFA No. 193/2019.
4. The Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 16/2019 has been filed
by the Union of India impugning the direction to it by the
Railway Claims Tribunal to refund the excess freight charges
and other amounts as indicated hereinabove. Whereas, the
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 193/2019, which is in the
form of a cross-appeal, filed by M/s Numaligarh Refinery
Limited under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987, praying for directing the Railways to pay the interest
at an enhanced rate of 12% per annum on the amount
which has been directed to be refunded by it.
5. It is pertinent to mention herein that the impugned
judgment dated 13.09.2018 passed in OA-III-31/2016 is a
common judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in
four other original applications apart from OA-III-31/2016,
namely, OA-III-26/2016, OA-III-27/2016, OA-III-28/2016,
and OA-III-29/2016. It is also pertinent to mention herein
that M/s Numaligarh Refinery Limited also preferred a
review application against the common judgment before the
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 4
Page 5 of 25
Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. The said review
application was registered as Review Application No.
51/2018. However, by order dated 25.03.2019, the said
review application was dismissed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal.
6. The facts relevant for consideration of both the appeals, in
brief, are that the Numaligarh Refinery Limited (hereinafter
referred to as NRL) booked a consignment of petroleum
products with the Railways from Numaligarh Refinery
Sidings (NMGS) to Kartarsinghwala (KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN)
and Hisar (HSR) the details whereof are given in 248 railway
receipts dated 11.07.2007 to 14.03.2008, which are
mentioned in the page Nos. 4 and 5 of the impugned
judgment dated 13.09.2018.
7. The appellant of Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 193/2019,
namely, the Numaligarh Refinery Limited, filed a claim
petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench
for refund of the excess freight charges, which it alleged
that the Railways had collected illegally due to application of
an incorrect chargeable distance for goods booked and
transported from Numaligarh Sidings to Kartarsinghwala
(KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR) for the period
11.07.2007 to 14.03.2008.
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 5
Page 6 of 25
8. The facts which led to filing of the original application No.
OA-III-31/2016, are that the Numaligarh Refinery wrote a
letter to the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (Freight
Marketing), NF Railway, Maligaon, bearing reference No.
NRL/MD/RGO/100/L dated 11.08.2006, seeking information
regarding prevailing chargeable distance to various
destinations as per the latest distance table issued by Zonal
Railways.
9. In response to aforesaid letter dated 11.08.2006, the Chief
Commercial Manager (Rates), N.F. Railway, by
communication bearing No. C/373/RO/1/26/III (Loose)
dated 05.09.2006, furnished the details of latest updated
distance table from Numaligarh Siding to various stations,
wherein the distance from Numaligarh Sidings to
Kartarsinghwala (KJW) was mentioned as 2507 km and to
Bijwasan (BWSN) was mentioned as 2269 km as well as to
Hisar (HSR) was mentioned as 2395 km. However, after a
lapse of two years therefrom, the Chief Commercial
Manager (Rates), N.F. Railway, by its letter No.
C/373/RQ/1/26/III (Loose) dated 31.07.2008, issued a
correction with reference to letter dated 11.08.2006, in
which it has stated that the chargeable distance from
Numaligarh Sidings to Ranchi has been previously indicated
in letter dated 05.09.2006 as 1378 km, which was not
correct, and the correct distance of 1443 km was mentioned
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 6
Page 7 of 25
in the said letter dated 31.07.2008. Thereafter, the
Railways, by its letter dated 25.09.2008, raised a demand
for arrears amounting to Rs. 98,35,378/-, pertaining to
period from 18.09.2006 to 23.07.2008, on account of error
in the chargeable distance for goods booked from
Numaligarh Sidings to Ranchi. The Numaligarh Refineries
Limited, in good faith, made the said payment against
pending freight claims for the aforesaid period.
10. Since the discrepancy in the chargeable distance of Ranchi
was detected by Railways after a lapse of two years, the
Numaligarh Refinery Limited, in order to avoid recurrence of
such overcharges, addressed a letter bearing No.
NRL/MD/RGO/190 dated 28.11.2008 to the Railways,
requesting confirmation of correct chargeable distances
from Numaligarh to various destination stations.
11. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 28.11.2008, the
Chief Commercial Manager (Rates), N.F. Railway, by its
letter bearing No. C/33/RQ/1/26/III (Loose) dated
01.12.2008, stated the correct chargeable distances for five
destination stations from Numaligarh Sidings, namely
Banthara, Hisar, Bijwasan, Kartarsinghwala, and Bhatinda.
In the said letter, the distance from Numaligarh Sidings to
Hisar was shown as 2365 km instead of 2395 km, which is
30 km less than what was stated earlier, and for which the
freights were charged by the Railways. Similarly, in the said
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 7
Page 8 of 25
letter the distance between Numaligarh Sidings to Bijwasan
was shown as 2212 km instead of 2269 km which is 57 km
less than what was shown earlier. Similarly, the distance
between Numaligarh Sidings to Kartarsinghwala was shown
as 2475 km, instead of 2507 km, which is 32 km less than
what was shown earlier.
12. Thereafter, the Railways, through the Chief Commercial
Manager (Rates), N.F. Railway, by letter No.
C/373/RQ/1/26/III (Loose) dated 16.12.2008, further
corrected the actual chargeable distance from Numaligarh
Sidings to Hisar, Bijwasan, Kartarsinghwala, and Bhatinda.
The distance between Numaligarh Sidings and Hisar was
further corrected to 2345 km thereby reducing the distance
of 50 km which was stated in letter dated 05.09.2006. The
distance between Numaligarh Sidings to Bijwasan was
further rectified to 2192 km making it 77 km lesser than
what was stated in letter dated 05.09.2006. Similarly, the
distance between the Numaligarh Sidings and
Kartarsinghwala was rectified to 2455 km thereby reducing
the distance by 52 km than what was stated in the letter
dated 05.09.2006
13. Thereafter, the Numaligarh Refinery Limited filed claim
petition under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 for refund of excess freight charges collected by the
Railways due to application of incorrect chargeable distance
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 8
Page 9 of 25
for goods booked and transported from Numaligarh Siding
to Kartarsinghwala (KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar
(HSR) for the period 11.07.2007 to 14.03.2008.
14. The claim application of the Numaligarh Refinery Limited
was registered as OA-III-31/2016. The said original
application was accompanied with application for
condonation of delay. The said delay condonation
application was registered as MA No. 12/2016. Thereafter,
by its order dated 21.10.2016 passed in MA No. 12/2016,
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, had condoned
the delay in preferring the claim application by the
Numaligarh Refinery Limited.
15. Thereafter, in the Original Application OA-III-31/2016., the
Railways filed their written statement denying its liability to
refund the amount which was alleged by the applicant as
excess freight charges due to wrong calculation of distance
between Numaligarh Sidings to Kartarsinghwala (KJW),
Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR).
16. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in the aforesaid
Original Application:
(i) Whether the applicant has served the statutory
notice within time to the respondent?
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 9
Page 10 of 25
(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled for refund of freight
overcharged by the respondent?
(iii) Relief and costs?
17. In support of their respective contentions, none of the
parties adduced any oral evidence; however, both sides filed
certain documents to support their rival contentions.
Ultimately, after hearing both sides, by the impugned
judgment and order, the claim of the present respondent
was allowed and the Railways were directed to pay the
compensation amount of Rs. 31,18,089/- and other dues as
already indicated in the foregoing paragraphs of this
judgment.
18. Ms. U. Chakraborty, the learned Special Senior Railway
counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the
Railway Claims Tribunal had erred in allowing the claim for
refund of alleged excess freight by Railways on wrong
distance, as the Railway authorities never admitted or
prepared any overcharge sheet in form of any
certificate/statement as claimed by the respondent.
19. She submits that the Tribunal also failed to take into
consideration that in its letter dated 11.08.2006, the
applicant/respondent have acknowledged the fact that due
to various reasons like commissioning of new lines, removal
of inflated distance due to bridge/barrier, etc., there has
been change of distance between junction to junction, and
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 10
Page 11 of 25
therefore, a request was made by the respondent to provide
the current and updated distance chart from the Chief
Commercial Manager, Railways, for the consignments which
are likely to be booked.
20. She submits that by the letter dated 31.07.2008, the
Railway Administration admitted the error in distance
between Numaligarh Sidings to Ranchi, which was wrongly
shown in its earlier letter dated 05.09.2006 as 1378 km
instead of 1443 km, and accordingly the same was
corrected. However, the said letter did not make any
correction as regards distance between Numaligarh Sidings
to Banthara, and said fact was not taken into consideration
by the Tribunal.
21. She further submits that in the letter dated 01.12.2008,
which was issued by the Railways in response to
respondent's letter dated 28.11.2008, the distance reflected
in the said letter between various stations was the distance
prevailing at the time when it was issued, and it had nothing
to do with the distance prevailing in the year 2006. She
submits that the respondent has failed to bring on record
any materials to show that the distance for which the
Railways had collected the freight was incorrect distance.
22. She submits that it is an admitted fact that distance
between various stations does not remain static and it keeps
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 11
Page 12 of 25
on changing due to various reasons like commissioning of
new line, removal of inflated distance due to bridge and
barrier, which was also acknowledged by the respondent in
their letter addressed to the Railways on 11.08.2006.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that
the Railway Claims Tribunal also erred in ignoring the fact
that no valid notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act,
1989 was issued by the claimant/respondent in the instant
case. She further submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal
also erred in holding that since the issue of service of notice
under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 has already
been decided in Miscellaneous Application No. 12/2016 by
order dated 21.10.2016, the said issue is barred by the
principles of res judicata. She submits that since the
issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act is a
prerequisite condition for filing any claim under Section 13
of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Tribunal ought
to have decided this issue independently and ought not to
have held that the said issue has already been decided by it
in Miscellaneous Application No. 12/2016. As such, she
submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal has committed
grave error both in law as well as in fact, and hence, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and quashed.
24. On the other hand, Ms. M. Sarma, the learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that the Railway Claims
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 12
Page 13 of 25
Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment
directing the Railways to refund the excess freight, which
was imposed on wrong calculation of distances between
Numaligarh Sidings to Banthara, after due consideration of
all the materials available on record.
25. She submits that by the judgment and order which has been
impugned in this appeal, the Railway Claims Tribunal had
disposed of five Original Applications, including the Original
Application No. OA-III-31/2016, which is the subject matter
in this appeal. She submits that by the said common
judgment, the Railway Claims Tribunal had also disposed of
the Original Application No. OA-III-27/2016, by which the
Claims Tribunal directed refund of excess freight imposed on
the present respondent on the basis of wrong calculation of
distance between Numaligarh Sidings and Banthara. She
submits that the Railways preferred an appeal against the
said judgment, which was registered as MFA No. 12/2019;
however, the said appeal was dismissed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated
19.09.2025 passed in MFA No. 12/2019.
26. She submits that as the issues involved in this appeal and
MFA Appeal No. 12/2019 were common issues and arising
out of a common judgment, hence, the judgment and order
dated 19.09.2025 passed in MFA No. 12/2019 and MFA No.
160/2019 is binding on this Court, as the said judgment
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 13
Page 14 of 25
squarely covers the issues involved in this case. Hence, she
submits that by applying the reasoning on the basis of
which MFA No. 12/2019 and MFA No. 160/2019 were
dismissed, these appeals are also liable to be dismissed. She
submits that in view of the judgment passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No. 160/2019, which
is the appeal preferred by the present respondent, she is
not pressing the MFA Appeal No. 193/2019.
27. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that though
in its letter dated 05.09.2006 the Railways had informed
that the distances between Numaligarh Sidings and
Kartarsinghwala (KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR)
were stated to be 2507 km, 2269 km and 2395 km
respectively. However, later on, in its letter dated
01.12.2008, it has stated that the said distances to be 2475
km, 2212 km and 2365 km respectively, which was further
rectified by letter dated 16.12.2008 as 2455 km, 2192 km
and 2345 km respectively thereby reducing the distance by
52 km 77 km and 50 km respectively from what was earlier
stated in letter dated 05.09.2006. She submits that the
documents submitted by the present respondent before the
Railway Claims Tribunal clearly indicates that the freight
collected from the present respondent against railway
receipts which were produced in the Original Application No.
OA-III-31/2016 was on the basis of taking the distance
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 14
Page 15 of 25
between Numaligarh Sidings and Kartarsinghwala (KJW),
Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR) as 2507 km, 2269 km
and 2395 km respectively. As such, the Railway Claims
Tribunal was correct in directing the refund of excess freight
of 52 km, 77 km and 50 km respectively which was illegally
collected by the Railways from the present respondent.
28. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that earlier
the Railways had raised a demand for arrears of Rs.
98,35,378/- for the period from 18.09.2006 to 23.07.2008 in
respect of the goods booked by the present respondent
from Numaligarh Sidings to Ranchi on the basis of wrong
mentioning of distance between the aforesaid two stations
in its letter dated 05.09.2006 as 1378 km, which was
rectified after two years by its letter dated 31.07.2008 as
1443 km. She submits that the same principle is applicable
in respect of correction of distance between other stations
also. She submits that as the Railways had collected the
shortfall of payment on the basis of rectification of distance
between Numaligarh and Ranchi after two years, the same
principle has to be applicable in case of correction of
distance between Numaligarh and Kartarsinghwala (KJW),
Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR) after two years. As such,
she submits that the said fact was taken into consideration
by the Railway Claims Tribunal while passing the common
judgment which has been impugned in this appeal and
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 15
Page 16 of 25
which has already been upheld by a coordinate Bench of
this Court by its judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed in MFA
No. 12/2019 and MFA No. 160/2019.
29. As regards issuance of notice under Section 106 of the
Railways Act, 1989, she submits that the said issue has
already been decided by the common judgment and order
dated 21.10.2016 passed in MA (Miscellaneous Application)
No. 12/2016, and the same has not been challenged by the
Railways before any higher forum. As such, they cannot
raise the same plea in this appeal as they are estopped from
doing so. In support of her submission, the learned counsel
for the respondent has cited the following rulings:
(i) Union of India vs. M/s. Numaligarh Refinery
Limited (Judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed in
MFA No. 12/2019)
(ii) Union of India and Others vs. West Coast
Paper Mills Limited and Others, reported in AIR
2004 SC 3079
(iii) M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited vs. Union of India (Judgment dated
14.12.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 21862 of 2017)
(iv) Hope Plantations Limited vs. Taluk Land
Board, Peermade and Others ” reported in
(1999)5 SCC 590 ;
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 16
Page 17 of 25
(v) Y. B. Patil and Others vs. Y. L. Patil (Judgment
dated 23.08.1976 in Civil Appeal No. 1298/1968)
(vi) C. V. Rajendran and Others vs. N. M.
Muhammed Kunhi (Judgment dated 13.09.2002
in Civil Appeal No. 5832/2002)
(vii) J. P. Rewa Cements vs. Union of India
(Judgment dated 29.06.2012 in MFA No. 80/2002)
30. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials
available on record. I have also gone through the rulings
cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of
their respective submissions.
31. The points to be determined in this appeal are: - Firstly, as
to whether the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench
had rightly held in the impugned judgment that the
respondent had complied with the mandatory requirement
of issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act,
1989 within the period prescribed by the law. Secondly,
whether the Railway Claims Tribunal was right in holding
that the appellants are liable to refund the excess freight
charges collected by them from the respondent, illegally due
to incorrect application of chargeable distance for goods
booked and transported from Numaligarh Sidings (NMGS) to
Kartarsinghwala (KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR)
for the period from 11.07.2007 to 14.03.2008. Thirdly,
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 17
Page 18 of 25
whether the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the original application
till the date of judgment and @ 9% per annum from expiry
of 90 days from the date of judgment till realization.
32. Though, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
“Union of India Vs. M/s Numaligarh Refinery Limited”
has by its judgment dated 19.09.2025, in MFA No. 12/2019,
arising out of same common judgment, which has been
impugned in this appeal, has upheld the judgment dated
13.09.2018, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. OA-III-31/2016.
However, let us independently consider the points for
determination formulated in this appeal.
33. As regards the first point as to whether the compliance
regarding issuance of notice under Section 106 of the
Railways Act, 1989 was there in this case or not, if we
peruse the common order dated 21.10.2016, passed in
Miscellaneous Application No. 10/2016 by the Railways
Claims Tribunal in connection with OA-III-31/2016, it
appears that in the said order itself, it was held by the
Railway Claims Tribunal that there was a compliance of
issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act,
1989.
34. The Railway Claims Tribunal treated the claim letter filed by
the respondent on 27.12.2008, to be a notice under Section
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 18
Page 19 of 25
106 of Railways Act, 1989. It appears that in the impugned
judgment while deciding Issue No. 1 regarding issuance of
notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, it was
held by the Railway Claims Tribunal that since the matter
regarding compliance of Section 106 of Railways Act has
been decided in MA No. 10 of 2016. Hence, the further
consideration of the said issue again in OA -III -31/2016 is
barred by principles of res judicata. This Court is in
agreement with the observations made by the Railway
Claims Tribunal in this regard. Same gets fortified by the
following observations made by the Apex Court in the case
of “ Hope Plantations Limited vs. Taluk Land Board,
Peermade and Others” (supra) :-
19. In Y.B. Patil v. Y.L. Patil [(1976) 4 SCC 66 : AIR
1977 SC 392] this Court said that:
“It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be
invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings,
they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same
proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a
proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the
subsequent stage of that proceeding.”
………………………………………………………….
26. It is settled law that the principles of estoppel and
res judicata are based on public policy and justice.
Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of
the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in
some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents
the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the
same question over again even though the determination
may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the
proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 19
Page 20 of 25
the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They
cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can
they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision
in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are “cause of
action estoppel” and “issue estoppel”. These two terms
are of common law origin. Again, once an issue has been
finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the
same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence
directed to showing that the issue was wrongly
determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher
forum if available. The determination of the issue
between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an
issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent
proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been
determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between
the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions of
res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general
doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and
res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before
administrative authorities as they are based on public
policy and justice.”
35. Otherwise also, since the respondent came to know about
wrong mentioning of distance between Numaligarh sidings
and Kartarsinghwala (KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar
(HSR) in the letter dated 05.09.2006 as 2507 km, 2269 km
and 2395 km respectively only on 01.12.2008, wherein, the
distance between Numaligarh Sidings and Kartarsinghwala
(KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR) was shown as
2475 km, 2212 km and 2365 km respectively, which was
lesser than what was earlier stated. Hence, the cause of
action for filing claim petition for refund arose on
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 20
Page 21 of 25
01.12.2008 only and the claim letter which was correctly
treated as notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, by
the Railway Claims Tribunal in its order dated 21.10.2016,
passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 10/2016 was issued
by the respondent on 27.12.2008, i.e., well within the period
of six months from the date when it came to know about
the fact that excess freight charges were collected from
them by the appellants, illegally due to incorrect application
of chargeable distance for goods booked and transported
from Numaligarh Sidings (NMGS) to Kartarsinghwala (KJW),
Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR) for the period from
11.07.2007 to 14.03.2008. Hence, this Court is of
considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the Railway
Claims Tribunal holding that there was compliance of notice
under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989.
36. As regards the second point for determination in this appeal
is concerned, it appears on perusal of the materials on
record that in respect of 248 numbers of railway receipt
ranging for the dates 11.07.2007 to 14.03.2008, the
respondents were overcharged for consignment booked and
transported from Numaligarh Sidings to Kartarsinghwala
(KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR) taking the
distance between them as 2507 km, 2269 km and 2395 km
respectively instead of 2455 km, 2192 km and 2345 km
respectively as shown by Railways letter dated 16.12.2008.
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 21
Page 22 of 25
The appellants have failed to produce any material before
the Railway Claims Tribunal to show that the distance of
1953 km between Numaligarh Sidings and Kartarsinghwala
(KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and Hisar (HSR) as shown in the
letter dated 05.09.2006 was reduced by 52 km, 77 km and
50 km respectively as shown by Railways letter dated
16.12.2008 was due to reasons like commissioning of new
lines, removal of inflated distance due to bridge/barrier etc.
It also appears that the distance shown between
Numaligarh to Kartarsinghwala (KJW), Bijwasan (BWSN) and
Hisar (HSR) in the Railways' letter dated 05.09.2006 was via
same route shown in the letter dated 01.12.2008 as well as
16.12.2008. However, the distance shown in the later letters
is less that what has been shown in letter dated 05.09.2006.
It is also pertinent to note that both the aforesaid letters,
namely, letter dated 01.12.2008 as well as 16.12.2008, bear
the subject captioned as "Discrepancy regarding calculation
of chargeable distance for traffic". As such, the Railway
Claims Tribunal was correct in holding that by its letters
dated 01.12.2008 and 16.12.2008, the Railways have
intimated the correct chargeable distance between
Numaligarh Sidings to Kartarsinghwala (KJW), Bijwasan
(BWSN) and Hisar (HSR), therefore, the respondent is
entitled to get a refund for excess chargeable distance
against the goods booked and transported during the
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 22
Page 23 of 25
periods mentioned in the relevant railway receipts in the
above-mentioned original application.
37. As regards the third point for determination in these
appeals, as to whether the Railway Claims Tribunal ought to
have awarded interest at the rate of 12% on the amount
directed to be refunded, it is pertinent to mention herein
that Numaligarh Refinery Limited had preferred a review
application against the impugned judgment before the
Railway Claims Tribunal, and said review application was
registered as Review Application No. 51/2018 seeking an
enhanced rate of interest on the amount which was directed
to be refunded by the Railways. However, the Tribunal
rejected the aforesaid review application by holding that
there was no provision in the Railways Act or the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for payment of interest. It also
observed that the interest was awarded only in exercise of
the inherent power under Rule 44 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1989 and no error apparent is
there on the face of record to justify a review under Section
152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
38. In the instant appeal, as stated earlier, in view of the
judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
MFA No. 12/2019, the learned counsel for Numaligarh
Refinery Limited has not pressed for enhancement of
interest in this appeal. Further, this Court is also in
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 23
Page 24 of 25
agreement with the observation made by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in MFA No. 12/2019 that grant of
interest in the absence of a specific statutory provision is
done by the Tribunal in exercise of its discretion, and unless
the aggrieved party is able to show that the said discretion
has been arbitrarily or illegally exercised, there is no
justification in interfering with the exercise of such
discretion by the Tribunal. This Court is also in agreement
with the observation made by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in MFA No. 12/2019 that the interest granted at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing till the date of
impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, and
thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum on default of
payment beyond 90 days till realization, may not be
regarded as inadequate or contrary to law justifying any
interference by this Court.
39. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the
foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, both the appeals,
namely MFA No. 16/2019 as well as MFA No. 193/2019, are
hereby dismissed.
40. Let the records of the Original Application, which were
requisitioned in connection with these appeals, be sent back
to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, along with a copy
of this judgment.
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 24
Page 25 of 25
41. The parties are left to bear their own costs .
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Amita Sharma
2026.09.19 13:59:33 +05'30'
MFA No. 16/2019 with MFA No. 193/2019 Page 25