M/S Nepal Shalimar Cements Pvt v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2552 of 2011 ====================================================== M/S Nepal Shalimar Cements Pvt. Ltd. An incorporated company having its Head Office at 38, Adarsh Nagar, Birganj, Nepal, through its Director Sri Raj Kumar Baidya son of Late Nathmal Baidya, resident of Adarsh Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Birganj, Nepal.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.

3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Dighi Khurd, B- Block, Hazipur.

4. The Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), East Central Railway, Hazipur.

5. The Goods Superintendent, East Central Railway, Raxaul.

6. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Kolkata. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2015 After some arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench for grant of appropriate relief in the factual matrixes of the case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not raise any objection to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

In above view of the matter, permission sought for is accorded.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

If the petitioner files an appropriate petition before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal within a period of one month

Patna High Court CWJC No.2552 of 2011 (4) dt.15-05-2015 2/2 from today and it is found that the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has become barred by limitation and if any petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner for condonation of delay, then the delay occurred in filing such petition shall be condoned and the matter shall be considered on its own merit, as on a bona fide legal advice, the petitioner had approached this Court in the present proceeding and the matter remained pending for a quite long time till date.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U