Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.10 seconds)Section 9 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
The Carriers Act, 1865
Section 130 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Prakash Road Lines (P.) Ltd. on 10 August, 1987
28. Then coming to another angle of dispute or controversy between the parties that second plaintiff never entered the witness box and how much reliance one could place on the evidence of first plaintiff in such event? The rights accrued to the assignee on account of assignment and how that should be enforced is a subject under Transfer of Property Act. This court held in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Prakash Road Lines (Supra) while dealing with similar issues.
Section 3 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Inter State Transports vs Pfizer Ltd. on 7 July, 1987
In this regard the Learned Counsel for the first respondent refers to the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Inter State Transports v. Pfizer Limited, ILR 1997 Karnataka 2870 wherein it is held as under:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another vs Vaishali Transport Forwarding Agency on 30 August, 1991
26. Under these circumstances it is very clear and definite that in order to absolve his liability the defendant tried to deny the very receipt of notice at Ex.P5. In this background if such claim is put forth by the consignor i.e., 2nd plaintiff, it is irrelevant whether such notice was also issued by Insurance Company i.e., the 1st plaintiff. A question came up before the High Court of Karnataka in the Oriental Insurance Company and Anr. v. Vaishali Transport Forwarding Agency (Supra) why mandatory notice as contemplated under Section 10 of the Carriers Act should be issued. In other words this Court had an occasion to deal with the purpose behind issuing such notice as contemplated under Section 10 of the said Act. The insistency to issue such notice before institution of the suit is with the object of bringing to the notice of the concerned person, the loss caused by its non-delivery, short delivery or loss of the consignment. When the mandatory requirement is not complied with it is within the Court's power to dismiss the suit or non-suit the plaintiff. However, this does not make it obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to mention the issuance of such notice in the plaint itself. It was held in the above case as under: