Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Section 3 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Indian Railways Act, 1890. [Entire Act]
Section 140 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Niranjanlall Agarwalla vs Union Of India on 7 March, 1968
4. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is Niranjanlall v. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 23). In that case the notice under Section 77 was served on the Chief Commercial Manager (Claims and Refunds) of the erstwhile Bengal and Assam Railway which did not have any officer of the designation of a manager though there was an officer known as General Manager having over all charge of many departments of that railway administration. It was found that the Chief Commercial Manager (Claims and Refunds) was equal in status to the manager. On those facts the Supreme Court held that the service of notice on the Chief Commercial Manager was sufficient service on the railway administration within the meaning of Section 140 read with Section 3(6). In the present case, both the Eastern and Northern Railways have got General Managers. The Chief Commercial Superintendent of North Eastern Railway is evidently an officer subordinate in rank to the Manager or General Manager. So that decision of the Supreme Court has also no application to the facts of the present case.
Chaturbhuj - Ram Lal vs Secretary Of State For India on 29 November, 1926
3. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on another decision of this Court in Chaturbhuj Ram Lal v. Secy, of State (AIR 1927 All 215) in which the service of a notice under Section 77 on the Chief Commercial Manager of the East Indian Railway was also held as sufficient compliance of Section 77 on the facts of that case. The learned Judges constituting the Bench without referring to the earlier Division Bench decisions cited above and without laying down any rule of law to the contrary as evident from their own observations, preferred to deal with the peculiar facts of that case. They observed that the question whether the notice was duly served upon the manager within the meaning of Section 140, as a general rule cannot be said to be a question of law at all, but is a question of fact depending upon the evidence in each case. In that case the notice was not only received by the Chief Commercial Manager but he actually started taking action thereon and did not choose to return the same to the notice-giver with a direction to address the same to the Agent of the East Indian Railway which at that time was managed by a company. On those facts it was observed that on receipt of a claim which should by Section 140 be addressed to the Agent, the Chief Commercial Manager has a choice of two alternatives, he can decline to deal with it on the ground that it has not been addressed to the Agent, and in the ordinary course if he does so, his duty, is to return it to the sender with a request that it shall be addressed in accordance with the Statute to the proper person. If he does not do so but retains it and either hands it to the Agent, or deals with it himself he must be taken to do so as the subordinate and agent of the Agent and on the strength of the old maxim that "everything is presumed to be done correctly", it must be presumed that if he does so he does it with the implied consent and therefore with the authority of the Agent. In the present case, even the receipt of this notice dated 7-4-1961 is being denied on behalf of the North Eastern Railway. So this decision cannot be held as an authority to lay down a rule of law that a notice under Section 77 instead of being served on the manager as required by Section 140 can be served on a subordinate officer like the Chief Commercial Superintendent.
1