Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Governor General In Council vs Musaddi Lal on 31 January, 1961

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Firm Ramdas Amritlal Pali on 13 September, 1963

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the controversy concerning the interpretation of the word 'loss' in Section 77 between the various High Courts in India has now been resolved by an authoritative pronouncement of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Governor-General-in-Council v. Musaddi Lal, AIR 1961 SC 725 and the case of Jhabar Mal, ILR (1954) 4 Raj 662 is no longer good law. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner does not contest this proposition. The Supreme Court has laid down that,--
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Central India Chemicals Private Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Railways on 12 December, 1961

These rulings have in any event to be reconsidered in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 'Governor-General in Council (now Union of India) v. Musaddi Lal, AIR 1961 SC 725; this was an appeal from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court to the effect that Section 77 was not a condition precedent, where the claim was for non-delivery of goods which that High Court held to be one distinct from a claim for compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration. Disagreeing with this view, the Supreme Court held :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Madansa Annasa Jain vs Union Of India And Anr. on 7 January, 1970

In Mr. Justice Desai was considering a case of goods which did not reach the destination because of serious disturbances and riots in the Punjab. They were despatched from Gujranwalla Railway Station in the Punjab. The plaintiff, therefore, based his cause of action on loss suffered by him by reason of wrongful detention or non-delivery of the bales and in the alternative on wrongful conversion of the bales. No notice, in that case, was alleged to have been given by the plaintiff under Section 77 of the Railways Act. While considering Section 77 of the Railways Act, Mr. Justice Desai observed during the course of his judgment that on a plain reading of the section, it clearly shows that it was incumbent on the consignor to notify to the railway administration his claim for compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration in respect of goods delivered for carriage within six months from the date of the delivery of the goods. The point was raised before him that the plaintiff had not notified to the railway administration his claim as required by Section 77 of the Railways Act. While considering this contention as well as while considering the basis of the cause of action of the plaintiff, the learned Judge was trying to find out the meaning of the word "loss" in Section 77. Many cases were cited. He came to the conclusion that the word "loss" should not be given any restricted meaning. According to him, therefore, the word "loss" in Section 77 did include the entire claim made by the plaintiff whether on the footing of non-delivery or negligence or wrongful detention or conversion on the part of the railway administration. It is on the basis of this finding that he considered the contentions raised before him regarding limitation. On behalf of the defendant, reliance was placed on Artcles. 30 and 31 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. On behalf of the other side, it was urged that Article 48 was applicable to the facts of that case. It was observed by him that Article 48 is a general Article and its operation would be excluded by the specific articles which deal with suit against carriers as such.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next