UNION OF INDIA . vs M/S BRAHMAPUTRA TMT BARS PVT. LTD . — MFA/11/2023

Case under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: : -.

Hearing Next hearing —

CNR: GAHC010174472022

Filing Number

MFA/10431/2022

Filing Date

26-Aug-2022

Registration No

MFA/11/2023

Registration Date

08-Feb-2023

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10224 - Appeal from Railway Claims Tribunal ( 248 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA .

    Adv. MR. P S BHATTACHARYYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S BRAHMAPUTRA TMT BARS PVT. LTD .

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar KalitaView PDF

    Case Summary: MFA/11/2023 Union of India v. M/S Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd The Gauhati High Court adjourned the matter for four weeks. The appellant's counsel (Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya) was heard, but the respondent did not appear. The court noted that respondent's counsel had previously indicated she would file her Vakalatnama and scheduled the case for relisting on a date to be fixed by the Registry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar KalitaView PDF

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar KalitaView PDF

  6. 12-May-2023

    Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  7. 17-Feb-2023

    Honourable Mr Justice Songkhupchung SertoView PDF

  8. 26-Aug-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. MFA/11/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MFA/11/2023 Union of India v. M/S Brahmaputra TMT Bars Pvt. Ltd The Gauhati High Court adjourned the matter for four weeks. The appellant's counsel (Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya) was heard, but the respondent did not appear. The court noted that respondent's counsel had previously indicated she would file her Vakalatnama and scheduled the case for relisting on a date to be fixed by the Registry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case