Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing East Indian Railway Company vs Messrs Nathmall Behari Lal on 12 March, 1917

East Indian Railway Company vs Sri Ram Mahadeo on 13 November, 1923

5. As to the case of East Indian"' Eailway Company v. Nathmal Behari Lal 89 Ind. Cas. 180 : 39 A. 418 : 15 A.L.J. 321, referred to above, it is to be noted that the only circumstance which the plaintiff had there proved was the fact that the goods had been despatched and on arrival of the train in Cawnpore seals of the doors of five waggons were found to have been broken and six bags of sugar found missing. The learned Judges were doubtful whether it was not a case of theft from a running train.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

The South Indian Railway Co. Ltd. By Its ... vs V.M.S.P. Brothers By One Of Its ... on 6 November, 1931

12. But, as I have said, "wilful neglect," however interpreted, is for the Plaintiffs to prove. Mr. Govindan Nambiar has urged that from the mere loss of this bale we could never properly infer wilful neglect on the part of the railway administration, or its servants, and in support of that he has quoted B.B. & C.I. Railway Co. v. Ranchhodlal Chhotalal & Co. (1919) I.L.R. 43 B. 769 and East, Indian Railway Co. v. Nathmal Behari Lal and Ors. (1917) I.L.R. 39 A. 418 cases. In those two particular cases there is no such general statement. All that is to be found there, as I understand those cases, is that the learned Judges in the circumstances did not consider the mere loss of the goods to be sufficient basis for an inference of wilful neglect. But there are no doubt other cases which go so far as to say generally that the loss itself is not sufficient basis for an inference of wilful neglect. The inference that there has been wilful neglect must be one of fact, and I am certainly not prepared to be led into any general statement of the character suggested. Indeed few things appear to me of less profit than for a Judge to make general statements that such and such inferences of fact cannot be drawn in cases which are not before him. Whether such an inference is to be drawn will depend upon the circumstances of each case. I am not prepared to say that, if a railway company accepted for carriage an elephant or a heavy engine or a large piece of machinery or a big girder for a bridge and afterwards said that it was lost, it had disappeared and they did not know what had become of it, that admission of loss would not itself imply wilful neglect on the part of the railway company or its servants. Here we are dealing with a bale, which from the record appears to have been 4 maunds in weight, that is about 3 courts. That would take two or three men to move.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Bengal North-Western Railway vs Firm Manorath Bhagat-Dhian Ram And B.B. ... on 25 July, 1924

2. Great reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the applicant on the case of East Indian Railway Co. v. Nathmal Behari Lal (1917) 33 All. 418. A reference to the facts as stated on page 321 would indicate that probably the Court below had there laid the burden of proof on the Railway Company and held that the Company had failed to discharge that-burden. Furthermore, it is to be noted that in that case it had been established that the examination of the seals had been continued at every station until the last but one before the arrival of the train at Cawnpore. The seals had been found, intact all along except when the train arrived at Cawnpore. There was no finding that the door wag found open. The case also was one under risk-note H and not B. Having regard to these pointes one may be able to distinguish that ease from the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

B.N.W. Railway vs Firm Manorath Bhagat Dhian Ram And B.B. ... on 25 July, 1924

2. Great reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the applicant on the case of East Indian Railway Company v. Nathmal Behari Lal 39 Ind. Cas. 130 : 15 A.L.J. 321 : 39 A. 418. A reference to the facts as stated on page 321 would indicate that probably the Court below had there laid the burden of proof on the Railway Company and held that the Company had failed to discharge that burden. Furthermore, it is to be noted that in that case it had been established that the examination of the seals had been continued at every station until the last but one before the arrival of the train at Cawnpore. The seals had been found intact all along except when the train arrived at Cawnpore. There was no finding that the door was found open. The case also was one under Risk Note H and not B. Having regard to these points one may be able to distinguish-that case from the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sri Ram Mahadeo vs East Indian Railway Company on 13 November, 1923

5. As to the case of East Indian Railway Co. v. Nathmal Behari Lal (1922) 1 A.C. 178 (188), referred to above, it is to be noted that the only circumstance which the plaintiff had there proved was the fact that the goods had been despatched and on arrival of the train in Cawnpore the seals of the doors of waggons were found to have been broken and six bags of sugar found missing. The learned Judges were doubtful whether it was not a case of theft from a running train.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Dominion Of India Formerly The ... vs Adam Haji Pir Muhamed Essac Represented ... on 31 July, 1952

6. It is finally urged that the plaintiff was at fault in not taking delivery of the bags towards the end of January when after considerable delay, the G.I.P. Railway authorised the South Indian Railway to deliver. There appears to us some substance in this contention. Reliance has been placed on -- 'East Indian Railway Co. v. Behari Lal,' AIR 1926 Lah.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gopal Rai, Phul Chand vs The Great Indian Peninsula Railway ... on 21 May, 1924

5. If the decision of the second issue depended on our being able to accept the learned Judge's view that there was No. negligence on the part of the railway company's servants we might have difficulty in upholding it. We find, however that under the terms of the risk note the Railways absolutely projected in case of robbery from a running train, which in this case is proved. It has been held in two cases of this Court, East Indian Railway Co. v. Nathmal, Behari Lal (1917) I.L.R. 39 All.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next