Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Anr. vs K. Mansukhram & Sons on 8 September, 1978

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Kailash Chand Jain And Company on 8 August, 1984

In the Union of India v. Mansukharam, AIR 1979 Guj 176 a learned single Judge following the decision of Ismail J. in Union of India v. Jetmall Sukanraj, AIR 1972 Mad 134 ruled that the bar against the liability of railway administration under Section 77B is absolute. But it does not deal with a case of non-delivery because the expression 'non-delivery' does not appear in Sub-section (1) though this finds place in other sections introduced by the Central Act XXXIX of 1961. With respect I am unable to agree with this interpretation. The 'loss' referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 77B is loss of goods; it is loss both to the consignor or the consignee, as the case may be and the Railway administration. The non-delivery in the said case results directly from loss of the goods.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Patel Traders vs Patel Ambaram Thakarshi on 22 January, 1985

3. I have gone through the judgment, particularly paragraph 10 thereof and I agree with the learned trial Judge that the plaintiff can be said to have the knowledge of the wrong delivery made by the carrier and that this knowledge was acquired by the plaintiff atleast before the end of the year 1973. So if a notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act is necessary, then the notice given for the first time on 9-9-1974 would obviously attract the bar contained in provisions of Section 10 of the Carriers Act. But the question is whether Section 10 applies or not. According to Mr. R.D. Vyas, Section 10 does not apply because it is confined to loss or damage and not to non-delivery. He read Sections 9 and 8 in conjunction with Section 10 and urged that whereas Sections 8 and 9 spoke of non-delivery also Section 10 referred to only loss or damage but not to non-delivery. Mr. Vyas invited my attention to my judgment in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. K. Mansukhram & Sons 20 GLR p. 333. There a similar question in respect of Section 77B of the Indian Railways Act was before me. I held that bar in Section 77B did not deal with non-delivery. I had also referred to Section 77 and 77A in that regard. Section 77 and 77A specifically mentioned loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery as the grounds occasioning the claim for damages. In Section 77, non-delivery is not mentioned. The same authority would analogically apply in the case of non-delivery.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1