Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)The Railways Act, 1989
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Kailash Chand Jain And Company on 8 August, 1984
In Union of India v. Kailash Chand Jain and Co. , learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court relying on Governor-General in Council v. Musaddi Lai , held that the Railway Administration was entitled to the benefit of Section 77B and absolved of liability, as the plaintiff neither paid nor engaged to pay the required percentage on the value declared of the goods by way of compensation for the increased risk. However, the case was in respect of non-delivery of silver bars.
Union Of India, Owning Eastern Railway ... vs Jetmall Sukanraj on 21 April, 1971
9. The Claims Tribunal referred the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Union of India v. K. Mansuhram & Sons, (1979) 20 Guj LR 333, which followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Union of India v. Jetmall Sukanraj (supra).
Union Of India And Anr. vs K. Mansukhram & Sons on 8 September, 1978
9. The Claims Tribunal referred the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Union of India v. K. Mansuhram & Sons, (1979) 20 Guj LR 333, which followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Union of India v. Jetmall Sukanraj (supra).
Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Section 23 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Governor General In Council vs Musaddi Lal on 31 January, 1961
In Union of India v. Kailash Chand Jain and Co. , learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court relying on Governor-General in Council v. Musaddi Lai , held that the Railway Administration was entitled to the benefit of Section 77B and absolved of liability, as the plaintiff neither paid nor engaged to pay the required percentage on the value declared of the goods by way of compensation for the increased risk. However, the case was in respect of non-delivery of silver bars.
Suraj Nath Prosad Kedarnath vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 29 January, 1975
In Suraj Nath v. Union of India , in which claim was related to prior to 1961 amendment, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that in case of non-delivery of the consignment, the railway administration is bound to make a disclose showing how the goods or the consignment was dealt with at different stages as the same is within the special knowledge of the railway administration and in case of failure to make such a disclosure, an adverse inference can be made against them under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. It further held that in such cases the Railway administration, cannot rely upon the provisions of the risk note which prima facie exempt it from liability unless evidence has been adduced which satisfied the court that loss, in fact, has occurred.
1