Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing T.S. Natcheappa Chetty vs The Irrawaddy Flotilia Company, ... on 8 December, 1913

The Canara Industrial And Banking ... vs V. Ramachandra Ganapathy Prabhu And ... on 9 September, 1966

Sri. K. R. Karanth, the learned counsel for the second defendant further drawn our attention to the fact that this condition is a part of the contract between the first defendant on the one hand and the second defendant on the other. If no right for the delivery of the goods is created n favour of the plaintiff by virtue of the transfer of the way bills, the plaintiff cannot complain that the goods have not been delivered in accordance with condition No. 10. He also contends that Condition No. 10 does not create any obligation on the part of the second defendant to deliver the goods only to the person who surrenders the original way bill. This condition, it is submitted is not obligatory and does not create a right in favour of the consignor or his transferee that the carrier is under a legal obligation not to deliver the goods unless the original is surrendered. A similar question came up for consideration in the decision of the Privy Council reported in (1914) ILR 41 Cal 670 Natcheappa Chetty v. Irrawaddy Flotilla Co. A representation similar to condition No. 10 printed at the back of the way bill in this case was embodied in a circular. The relevant clause in the Circular reads:
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1