Delhi High Court · 2025-07-21
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY vs SH PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- CM(M)-558/2025 2025:DHC:5957
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY
- Respondent
- SH PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21st July, 2025 + CM(M) 558/2025 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Mr. Shubhham Chaturvedi, Advocates. versus SH PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manindra Dubey, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM(M) 558/2025 & CM APPL. 42816/2025 (seeking vacation of interim order) 1. The present petition has been filed by Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway (hereinafter “Union of India”), being aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2024 whereby their Revision Petition has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. While entertaining the present petition and issuing notice, there was also a direction to petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount before the learned District Forum where the execution proceedings are pending, with further order that no coercive step be taken therein and it is in the abovesaid background that after receiving of notice by respondent, an application has been moved seeking vacation of such interim order. 3. Learned counsel for respondent (complainant before the learned District Forum) submits that the complainant is in his nineties and is a retired Lieutenant General. 4. The incident in question is of the year 2002 when the complainant was travelling in a train and the compensation was sought by him on account of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 558/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:23.07.2025 17:11:25 deficiency in service, during such train journey. 5. The complaint was allowed in the year 2016 and against such judgment, Union of India had filed an appeal before the learned State Commission, Delhi and such first appeal was dismissed o