Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.59 seconds)Union Of India (Uoi) vs Gujrat Tobacco Co. And Ors. on 26 August, 1953
12. Mr. Acharjyya contended on behalf of the appellants that it has been held in several cases of this High Court and other High Courts that there is sufficient compliance widi the provisions of Section 140 of the Indian Railways Act if the notice is served upon the Chief Commercial Manager who generally deals with claims instead of the General Manager of the railway. He drew our attention to a case reported in Union of India v. Gujrat Tobacco Co., , where it has been held, after a discussion of various cases of our High Court and other High Courts, that the notice served under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act upon the Chief Commercial Manager instead of on the General Manager is good service, as claims against the railways are dealt with by that officer. Service of notice of claim upon him must be taken to be substantial compliance with the requirements of law.
Sristhidhar Mandal vs Governor-General In Council on 25 January, 1945
In the case of Sristidhar Mandal v. Governor General in Council , there was notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act served upon the Chief Commercial Manager. Hen-derson; J. held that the said notice was good notice, although not served, strictly in accordance with Section 77 read with Section 140 of the Indian Railways Act. In giving reasons for his decision, his Lordship observed :--
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
South Indian Co-Operative Stores Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 10 July, 1956
26. Then again in the case of South Indian Cooperative Stores Ltd. v. Union of India, , notice of claim was sent to the Chief Commercial Manager. Das Gupta and Guha, JJ. held that although the Indian Railways Act required service of notice under Section 77 in the manner laid down in Section 140 of the Act, protection under Section 77 could be waived. Proceeding further their Lordships observed :--
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Indumati Saha W/O Upendra Nath Saha on 5 April, 1951
13. Mr. Acharjyya contended on behalf of the appellants that since the preponderance of view of this Court is that service of notice of claims on the Chief Commercial Manager of a railway is good service, it should also be held that service of notice of such claims upon the Claims Officer should also be held to be good service inasmuch as the Claims Officer actually deals with all claims which are notified under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. Mr. Basil appearing on behalf of the defendant respondent contended, on the other hand, that there is no justification for extending the principles of the decisions referred to above to a case where notice of a claim is given to the Claims Officer who is subordinate in rank to the Chief Commercial Manager. In my judgment, it is not necessary in the present case to decide this question, because there is a notification in this case issued by the then Agent of the Bengal Nagpur Railway expressly authorising the Claims Officer to receive notices under Sections 77 and 140 of the Indian Railways Act.
1