Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing East Indian Railway Co. vs Jogpat Singh on 1 February, 1924

Union Of India (Uoi) (As Representing ... vs Meghraj Agarwalla And Anr. on 11 February, 1958

9. As regards the first consignment, the first question that requires consideration is whether Section 7V of the Indian Railways Act, has any application to this claim. Section 77 provides, inter alia, that a person shall not be entitled to compensation for the loss, destruction or deteropration of goods delivered to be carried by a railway unless his claim to such compensation has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf to the railway administration within six months from the date of the delivery of the goods for carriage by railway. A notice purported to be under Section 77 was served in this case but well beyond the period of six months from the date of delivery of the goods to the railway for carriage. If, therefore, this is a case of claim for compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods delivered to be carried, the plaintiff must fail. The mere fact that something was not delivered, in this case, a part of the consignment, is not sufficient to show that there was loss within the meaning of Section 77. In East Indian Rly. Co. v. Jogpat Singh , this Court held that the word, 'loss' in Section 72 of the Indian Railways Act does not mean pecuniary or other loss suffered by the owner of the goods through being wrongly deprived of the possession, use or enjoyment thereof, but means loss of the goods while in transit and such loss occurs whenever the Railway Company, to which the goods have been consigned for conveyance, involuntarily or through inadvertence loses possession of the goods and for the time being is unable to trace them. This view has been constantly followed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Niranjan Lall Agarwalla vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 9 June, 1961

10. In the very next year, another Division Bench of this Court consisting of Suhrawardy and Page, JJ. took the view, in the case of East Indian Rly. Co. v. Jogpat Singh , that the term 'loss' as used in risk notes and in Chapter VII of the Indian Railways Act, dealing with the responsibility of railway administration as carriers, did not mean pecuniary or other loss suffered by the owner of the goods through being wrongfully deprived of the possession, use or enjoyment thereof but meant loss of the goods by the railway administration, while in transit, and such, loss occurred whenever the railway involuntarily or through inadvertence lost possession of the goods and for the time being was unable to trace them. Their Lordships further held that non-delivery of goods consigned to a railway for conveyance might be due to the fact that the goods were being deliberately detained by the railway administration or they had been mis-delivered to some persons or that they were lost. It did not, therefore, necessarily follow that by proving the non-delivery of goods the loss of the goods was also proved.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Suraj Nath Prosad Kedarnath vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 29 January, 1975

In such cases the railway administration cannot rely upon the provision of the risk note which prima facie exempt it from liability unless evidence has been adduced which satisfies the court that loss, in fact, has occurred. Such a point was raised though in context in risk note form 'B' and in Chapter VII of the Railways Act (IX of 1890). The point was considered by Suhrawardy and Page JJ. in. the case- of East Indian Rly. Co. v. Jogpat Singh reported in 28 Cal WN 1001 = (AIR 1924 Cal 725). The observation of their Lordships clinches the issue and as such it may be narrated here.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1