Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.67 seconds)Section 151 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 152 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Union Of India, Eastern Railway And Anr. vs St. Joseph Textiles, Karur on 9 August, 1984
(emphasis supplied)
In Joseph Textiles case (), the defence of the railway is that the goods which were booked under Railway Receipt Ex.B-1 on 11.6.1973 reached the concerned railway station on 1.7.1973 and made available for more than 7 days. No one took delivery till 20.7.1973 and on 21.7.1973, the parcel was taken delivery. The request for rebooking was made on 12.9.1973 (i.e.) two months after termination of transit. In the case of Joseph Textiles the railway relied upon Ex.B-6, the railway receipt on which the delivery was effected, though it was established as forged one. The railway further relied upon Ex.B-7 marked through their witness D.W.1, the register maintained in the railway station concerned to show that the goods were received on 1.7.1973 and delivered on 21.7.1973. This was not disputed by the plaintiff and therefore the date of receipt of goods and date of delivery is not in dispute. The Court going in several documents filed by the railway, held that the railway was careless and negligent while delivering the goods on 21.7.1973, however, held that the delivery was effected after seven days of termination of transit and therefore, the railway is entitled to the statutory protection under Section 77(2) of the Indian Railways Act. There is no such evidence in the present cases and the Railway has not proved any of the above facts to seek protection under Section 77(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Section 77 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
St. Joseph Textiles vs Union Of India And Another on 17 December, 1992
In the case of St. Joseph Textiles v. Union of India and Anr. , the specific case of the Railway is that the goods arrived at Railway station was on 1.7.1973 and the free time allowed for removal in question was extended only upto 10.7.1973 and the goods were wrongly delivered against a non-genuine receipt on 21.7.1973. This was supported by documentary evidence. There is no such proof filed in the present cases. It is therefore, clear that unless, the Railway plead and proved the date of termination of transit and that within the period allowed, the goods were not taken delivery, the liability of the Railway is not discharged in terms of Section 77(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The view taken by the (Technical) Member and the Third Member are contrary to the provisions of the Act and based on a misreading of the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1692 (cited supra).
Rajendra Textiles, Jodhpur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 December, 2001
23. It is a fact that goods have not been delivered to plaintiff; who has been held to be entitled to; so it is a case "of nondelivery and as defendant No. 3 who was possessed of the requisite information about the termination of transit to take benefit of alteration of its absolute liability under Section 73 of the Act; has neither pleaded nor placed necessary facts therefore; we have to infer that the non-delivery was in transit. We may make it clear that delivery to a wrong person, in the instant case to defendant No. 2, would not take the case out of the ken of the expression 'non delivery1 so far as the plaintiff is concerned.(emphasis supplied)
Similarly, a view has been expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in Rajendra Textiles, Jodhpur v. Union of India and the observation of the learned Judge, of which I approve and extract the same for the sake of clarity and emphasis: