Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.00 seconds)
Union Of India Owning The Southern ... vs Sha Vastimull Harakchand on 14 July, 1958 cites

Governor General In Council And Ors. vs Mahabir Ram And Anr. on 14 May, 1952

On behalf of the respondent, in support of the view that no notice is necessary, the following cases have been cited: Two Full Bench decisions of the Allahabad High Court, Governor General in Council v. Mahabir Ram, (E); and Mutsaddi Lal v. Governor General in Council, (F); Rani Narain v. Dominion of India, (G); Janeshwar Lal Rajeshwar Lal v. Dominion of India, AIR 1951 Punj 383 (II).
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Mutsaddi Lal vs Government-General In Council Through ... on 25 July, 1952

On behalf of the respondent, in support of the view that no notice is necessary, the following cases have been cited: Two Full Bench decisions of the Allahabad High Court, Governor General in Council v. Mahabir Ram, (E); and Mutsaddi Lal v. Governor General in Council, (F); Rani Narain v. Dominion of India, (G); Janeshwar Lal Rajeshwar Lal v. Dominion of India, AIR 1951 Punj 383 (II).
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - V Bhargava - Full Document

The Governor-General Of India In ... vs G. Krishna Shenoy on 10 August, 1950

11. We may next take un the principle discussed by Krishnaswami Nayudu J., in 1955 Mad WN 171 (D) and Horwill J., in Governor-General of India in 'Council v. G. Krishna Shenoy, (J). In holding that no notice was necessary in cases of nondelivery of goods, Horwill J., took the view that it was for the Railway company to establish that the goods have been lost whilst in their possession and therefore the railway could not deprive the plaintiff of his right of suit on the plea of want of notice under Section 77.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The Madras And Southern Mahratta ... vs Haridoss Banmali Doss on 22 February, 1918

Principles of burden of proof are of relevance only for deciding whether or not a liability exists. They could have no bearing on the question of the need or otherwise for a notice under Section 77. The view staled by Horwill J., was not accepted by Krishnaswami Nayudu J., in 1955 Mad WN 171 (D). In doing so, he relied upon a decision of the Bench of the Madras High Court reported in M. and S.M. Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Haridoss Banmali Doss, ILR 41 Mad 871: (AIR 1919 Mad 140) (K), in which the learned Judges observe that notice is required to be given to the railway within a reasonable time in order to enable them to make enquiries and if possible to recover the goods. That seems to me to be the correct principle.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Abdul Basheer Saheb vs Government Of Mysore By The Chief ... on 2 December, 1952

On behalf of the petitioner in support of the view that notice is necessary, reliance is placed' upon the following cases: Assam Bengal Railway Co., Ltd. v. Radhika Mohan Nath, AIR 1923 Cal 397 (A); Abdul Basheer Saheb v. Government of Mysore, ILR 1953 Mys 489; (AIR 1954 Mys 57) (B); Southern Railways Ltd. v. U. P. Shankar Rao, 1LR 1954 Mys 204 (C); Ramalingam Chettiar v. Union of India, 1955 Mad WN 171 (D).
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1