- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32086 MFA No. 2421 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2421 OF 2024 (RCT) BETWEEN: THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, RAIL SOUDHA, HUBBALLI KARNATAKA- 580 020. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI.,ADVOCATE) AND: GOKULAKRISHNAN @ GOKULA KRISHNA S/O LATE. SHESHACHALAMSUBHASH CHADRA BOSE, AGED: 25 YEARS, R/AT SRI RANGANILAYA, DOUBLE ROAD, SAVARKAR NAGAR, SHIMOGA - 577 202, KARNATAKA. PERMANENT R/ NO.675 MAIN ROAD, SATHANUR, THIRUVANNAMALAI - 606 706 TAMILNADU STATE …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MANJULA A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D. KUMAR RAJU.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32086 MFA No. 2421 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DT. 29.06.2022 PASSED BY THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IN OA.II (U) NO. 10/2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 16 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 R/W SECTION 124 A AND 125 OF INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed questioning the impugned Judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 29.06.2022 by the railway authorities. Compensation having been granted in favour of the injured in an untoward incident while travelling in the train. I.A.No.1/2025 is filed to condone the delay of 547 days in filing the appeal. Respondent's counsel though having not filed objections orally objects to the application on the ground that it is vague and no bona fide reasons are forthcoming in affidavit annexed to the application for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32086 MFA No. 2421 of 2024 condoning the delay. Perused the affidavit annexed to the application for condonation of delay of 547 days. Paragraph No.3 is a reason assigned for condoning the delay of 547 days. Which reads as under: "3. I respectfully submits that the Hon'ble Railway Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2022, in OA II(U) No. 10/2019, on the file of the Railway Claim Tribunal at Bengaluru. Our counsel filed certified copy of the order. Thereafter I have sent the file for legal opinion to the office, the said office has returned the file along with legal opinion to prepare the appeal. Thereafter the file was sent for approving the filing of the Appeal. The office approved the file to filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Court. Hence there is delay in filing the above appeal". 3. It is contented by learned counsel for the appellant that there is a bona fide reasons for occurrence of the delay and it is not deliberate and intentional and, hence, the delay be condoned as the appellant has a very good case on merits. 4. Having perused the reasons assigned for condonation of delay, this Court will have to see whether the appellant has made out good grounds to condone the delay. Before that, it would be relevant to extract Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32086 MFA No. 2421 of 2024 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which contemplates the period within which an appeal could be filed. "23(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the order appealed against". 5. In the present case, there is a delay of 547 days. Of course, if the reasons are properly assigned which would be sufficient, cogent and satisfactory there being no deliberate attempt to delay with valid bona fide reasons, this Court can consider condoning the delay. 6. In the present case on hand, on careful perusal of paragraph No.3, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason forthcoming to explain the delay and the reasons for delay, as no bona fide reasons are made out, no satisfactory explanation is made out showing any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. This kind of explanation provided in paragraph No.3 has not been appreciated by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32086 MFA No. 2421 of 2024 the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA). All the more for the State agencies and the Central agencies, making these kind of frivolous statements of service exigencies and delay in sending opinions are not appreciated in the age of technology where notices are sent in WhatsApp, through emails and other electronic modes of communications. When the technology is advanced, the government is still crawling on its knees in sending communications and in moving an application for condoning the delay, which will certainly not be appreciated by this Court hereafter. Accordingly, there being no good grounds in allowing the application for condonation of delay, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) I.A.No.1/2025 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32086 MFA No. 2421 of 2024 (ii) The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant has deposited the entire compensation amount before the claims tribunal. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation. (iii) The amount shall be disbursed in accordance to the order passed by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the respondent is entitled to make an application before the claims tribunal for withdrawal of the amount at one stretch by explaining proper and good reasons, which shall be entertained and, if satisfied, be dealt with in accordance with law. Sd/ (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22