HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 820 of 2011 Court No. - 19 HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in claim Case No. OC-9700382, whereby, on issue No. 1, it has been held that the appellant was unable to establish its title in respect of the consignment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved in the above appeal has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Cement Works vs. Union of India and has also been considered in three appeals decided by this Court, F.A.F.O Nos. 471 of 2000, 472 of 2000 & 477 of 2000. It has been urged that in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the above three appeals decided by this Court dated 31.07.2017, the present appeal may also be decided in the light of proposition lead by the Apex Court. Sri Pratul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that issue involved in the present appeal is already covered by the decision referred by the learned counsel for the appellant. Upon perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Deputy Solicitor General Of India, Mahendra Kumar Mishra, Pratul Kr. Srivastava M/S Krishak Bharati Co-Operative Ltd. Kribhco Kribhco .....Appellant(s) Union Of India Through The General Manager Northern Eastern .....Respondent(s) Raymond Cement Works vs. Union of India where it has been held as under: "We say so on the strength of the interpretation of Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 74 of the Act is extracted hereunder: "74. Passing of property in the goods covered by railway receipt. The property in the consignment covered by a railway receipt shall pass to the consignee or the endorsee, as the case may be, on the delivery of such railway receipt to him and he shall have all the rights and liabilities of the consignor." A perusal of Section 74 of the Act reveals, that for passing of property in the goods, covered by a railway receipt, by way of endorsement, it is essential, that the endorsement should satisfy the ingredients thereof, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Act. Section 2(13) is reproduced hereunder: "2 (13) "endorsement" means the signing by the consignee or the endorsee after adding a direction on a railway receipt to pass the property in the goods mentioned in such receipt to a specified person." A perusal of the definition of the term ''endorsement', leaves no room for doubt, that an ''endorsement', within the meaning of Section 74, means only such endorsement wherein and whereby a direction is recorded that the property in the goods mentioned in the receipt, would pass to the endorsee. Insofar as the ''endorsement' made by the appellant in the present case is concerned, no such direction was contained in the endorsement". It is therefore apparent, that the endorsement recorded in the present case (on the railway receipt) would be inconsequential, as far as, Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989 is concerned. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the claim raised by the appellant before the Railway Claims Tribunal could not be declined, on the strength of Section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989. In view of the above, the finding of issue No. 1 is set-aside. Accordingly, FAFO No. 820 of 2011 2 the appeal stands allowed and the order/judgment dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in OC-9700382 is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide the issue No.2 to 6 again in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the view taken by this Court. Since the matter is quite old, therefore, it is directed that the learned Railway Claims Tribunal shall make every effort to decide the same as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. November 26, 2025 Arjun/- FAFO No. 820 of 2011 3 (Prashant Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench