Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.40 seconds)Section 9 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S. Transport Corporation Of India Ltd vs M/S. Veljan Hydrair Ltd on 22 February, 2007
24. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Transport Corporation of India Limited supra is squarely applicable to the case
on hand. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the Section 10 of the Act
is not applicable to the suit. The said finding arrived at by the trial Court needs
no interference by this Court. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. There
is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
18/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 06:46:45 pm )
Economic Transport Organisation Delhi vs M/S Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.& Anr on 17 February, 2010
(i) In the case of Economic Transport Organization Vs. Charan
Spinning Mills Private Limited and another, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 114,
the Honb'le Supreme Court held as under:
Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd vs Best Roadways Ltd on 27 March, 2000
(ii) In the case of Nath Bros.Exim International Ltd., Vs. Best
Roadways Ltd., reported in 2001 1 LW 756, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
thus:
The British And Foreign Marine ... vs The India General Navigation And ... on 12 July, 1910
26. We have already reproduced the provisions of Sections 6, 8
and 9 above. Section 6 enables the common carrier to limit his
liability by a special contract. But the special contract will not
absolve the carrier if the damage or loss to the goods, entrusted
to him, has been caused by his own. negligence or criminal act
or that of his agents or servants. In that situation, the carrier
would be liable for the damage to or loss or non-delivery of
goods. In this situation, if a suit is filed for recovery of
damages, the burden of proof will not be on the owner or the
plaintiff to show that the loss or as damage was caused owing
to the negligence or criminal act of the carrier provided by
Section 9. The carrier can escape his liability only if it is
established that the loss or damage was due to an act of God or
enemies of the State (or the enemies of the King, a phrase used
by the Privy Council). The Calcutta decision in The British &
Foreign Marine Insurance Co. vs. The Indian General
Navigation and Railway Co.Ltd.
The River Steam Navigation Co., Lt.D vs Shyam Sundar Tea Co., Ltd on 5 May, 1961
(supra), the Assam decision in
River Steam Navigation Co. Ltd &Anr. vs. Syam Sunder Tea
Co. Ltd. (supra), the Rajasthan decision in Vidya Ratan vs.
Kota Transport Co.Ltd.