Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.60 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 77 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 161 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 152 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 160 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Madras And Southern Mahratta ... vs Haridoss Banmalidoss on 22 February, 1918
There are undoubtedly two distinct articles, Arts. 30 and 31
in the first schedule of the Indian Limitation Act dealing
with limitation for suits for compensation against carriers.
Article 30 prescribes the period of limitation for suits
against a carrier for compensation against loss or injury to
goods and Art. 31 prescribes the period of limitation for
suits for compensation against a carrier for non-delivery or
delay in delivering the goods. The period of limitation
under each of these articles is one year but the points of
time from which that period is to be reckoned are different.
But because the Indian Limitation Act provides different
points of time from which the period of limitation is to
run, it is not possible to infer that the claim covered by
either article is not for compensation for loss, destruction
or deterioration of the goods. We are unable to project the
provisions of Art, 30 and 31
652
of the Limitation Act upon ss. 72 and 77 of the Railways Act
and to hold that a suit for compensation for loss because of
non-delivery of goods does not fall within s. 77. The view
we have expressed is supported by a large volume of
authority in the courts in India for instance The Madras and
Southern Mahratta Railway Co., Ltd. v. Haridoss Banmalidoss
(1), Hill Sawyers and Co. v. Secretary of State (2), Martab
Ali v. Union of India (s), Union of India v. Mitayagiri
Pullappa (4), Assam Bengal Railway Co., Ltd. v. Radhika
Mohan Nath (5) and Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Hamir
Mull Chhagan Mull (6).