Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)Governor-General In Council vs Firm Badri Das Gauri Dutt on 26 February, 1951
3. Next I am referred to the decision in Governor General In Council v. Firm Badri Das Gauri Dutt, where it is held by Agar-wala, J. that the railway administration is not bound in law to give open delivery on the demand of a consignee, and that hence any delay in effecting open delivery in pursuance of Ihe wishes of the consignee cannot make the railwav administration loable for any loss on account of fall in the market price of the goods. This decision docs not really touch the question lhat arises in the present case, but is relied upon by the learned counsel only in support of his contention that the railway is not bound in law to give open delivery.
The Union Of India (Uoi), Owning South ... vs Radhikaran Satyanarayana on 11 July, 1958
I am referred to the decision of Munikannaiah, J. in Union of India v. Radhikaran Satyanarayana,
. In that case, a consignment of 225 bags of peas were despatched from Arrah to Kakinada pott. The goods arrived at Kakinada Port on 27-9-1953. but the plaintiff took delivery only on 2-11-1953 by which time, 30 bags of peas were damaged and
became unfit for human consumption. Damages
were claimed by the consignee with respect to these 30 bags which were damaged. The learned Judge, after referring to Sections 47, 72 and 74-A of the Indian Railways Act and Rule 31 of the General Rules, held that the plaintiff was bound to take delivery of the consigned goods within a reasonable time after the arrival at the destination. It was pointed out that by sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the General Rules, the railway administration seeks to limit ils responsibility as warehousemen to the period from the time of booking of the goods to the free time allowed for demurrage and wharfage to Ihe consignee before delivery of the goods lo him. The learned Judge expressed his view that what is sought to be achieved by framing this Rule is that though demurrage and wharfage is chargeable after the time within which the consignee is to take delivery of the goods, no responsibility thereafter exists for the Railway Administration to warehouse and retain the goods at the destination on behalf of the consignee or the owner. As in that case the plaintiff defaulted in taking delivery from 27-9-1953 to 2-11-1953 and as the plaintiff failed to prove that the goods were damaged not during that period but earlier during the transit, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.
Sri Gangaji Cotton Mills Co., Ld. vs East Indian Railway Co. on 21 June, 1922
The learned Judge referred to an earlier decision in Sri Gangaji Cotton Mills Co., Ltd. v. East Indian Rly. Co., II,R 44 All 763: (AIR 1922 All 514), and observed that when a consignee insists on open delivery, he would be insisting upon something to which he is not, in law, entitled.
Dominion Of India vs Netai Chandra Haldar on 20 November, 1951
Next I am referred to the decision in Dominion of India v. Netai Chandra, . In that case the plaintiff asked delivery of a consignment of soft coke after re-weighment because he suspected shortage and the railway agreed to do so provided the plaintiff was prepared to pay (he costs of such reweighment. But the plaintiff was not, however, prepared to pay such costs and claimed reweighment free of charge and the railway company refused to give delivery of the goods afler reweighment free of cost as claimed by the plaintiff. On that, tile plaintiff filed the suit to recover the price of the goods consigned. On those facts, in that context, it was held that the railway company is under no obligation to rcweigh the goods before delivery, where the identity of the goods is not in question, and, that, if the consignee refuses to accept delivery on that ground, he does so at his own risk, and is not entitled to claim damages for non-delivery. This decision has really no bearing on the present question.
1