General Manager, Delhi Transport ... vs Vijay Goods Carriers (P) Ltd. And Ors. on 12 August, 1968
In my opinion, the very fact that the word "injuring" has been used along with the words "taking" or "detaining", suggests that the word "injuring" was presumably intended to be used when the property is in possession of someone who has either wrongfully taken it from the plaintiff or wrongfully detained the same. This view also finds support from a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kirpa Ram v. Kunwar Bahadur, as also from a more recent decision of a learned Single Judge of the same Court in Dominion oj India v. Central Aerating Gas Company, Ambala Cantt., Rajamannar, C.J. in Corporation of Madras v. B. D. Ktokandapani, has also taken the same view following the Bom bay decision in the case of Essoo Bhayaji. In the absence of any con1. trary Judicial precedent I fell inclined as at present advised to take the same view as has been taken in these decisions. It is true that in the third column the terminus a quo is inter alia also the point of time when the property is injured but that may nto govern the meaning of tha language used in the first column of Article 49.