The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Firm Jiwan And Abdullah on 5 February, 1923
15. I need not, therefore, refer to the two decisions of Secretary of State for India in Council v. Jiwan and Abdullah (1923) I.L.R. 45 All.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)A.A.A.R. Arunachellam Chettyar And ... vs The Madras Railway Company on 22 September, 1909
12. On the other hand in Arunachellam Chettiar v. The Madras Railway Company (1909) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 120 the goods were consigned from station E to station K, but the ordinary practice was to send goods beyond station K to station C and then back again from C to K. In fact the goods were damaged while at station C. There it was held that the condition in the risk-note included the usual transit according to the practice of the railway company, and that the consignor must be taken to have known it or ought to have known it, and that as the railway company were merely carrying out their usual practice, they were protected under the risk The judgment proceeded to add (pp. 121, 122):
1