Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.36 seconds)
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Madhusudan Sahu on 15 January, 1964 cites

Union Of India vs Amar Singh on 28 October, 1959

In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Amar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 233. In that case a few of the consigned articles were offered to the consignee subject, to the condition of payment of certain sum due on account of freight and the consignee refused to take delivery of them and made a claim against the forwarding railway for compensation for non-delivery of goods and as the claim was not complied with, he instituted a suit against the Dominion of India. In that case their Lordships did not decide whether the case came under Article 30 or 31 of the Limitation Act and proceeded on the assumption that Article 30 applied and held that the burden is on the Railways who seek to non-suit the plaintiff on the ground of limitation to establish that the loss occurred beyond one year from the date of the suit. Hence that decision does not help the contention of Mr. Sen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

S. N. Dutt vs Union Of India on 27 March, 1961

In a case reported in S.N. Dutta v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1449 the notice under Section 80 was given by Messrs. S.N. Dutta and Co. and the suit was filed by S.N. Dntta, the sole proprietor of the business carried under the above name and style. Their Lordships held that S. 80, according to its plain meaning, requires that there should be identity of the person who issues the notice with the person who brings the suit. Where an individual carries on business in some name and style the notice has to be given by the individual in his own name for the suit can Only be filed in the name of the individual.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 37 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Jainarain vs The Governor-General Of India ... on 18 January, 1949

12. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent, relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Jainarain v. Governor General of India, AIR 1951 Cal 462. In that case the learned Judge held that it is necessary that there should be specific and direct acknowledgment of the particular liability which is sought to be enforced and if there is an admission of facts oi which the liability in question is a necessary consequence, there would be an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the defendant-railways in that case clearly admitted that one bundle of cloth was lying undelivered at the destination and they were liable for delivering the same. Their Lordships held that the non-deliyery being admitted, the suit was saved under Article 19 of the Limitation Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next