Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 75 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
East Indian Railway Co. vs Jogpat Singh on 1 February, 1924
Co. v, Jogpat Singh', AIR 1924 Cal 725 (C). They further held that mere proof of non-delivery was by no means conclusive evidence as to whether or not the loss has occurred.
Governor-General In Council vs Lala Debi Sahai on 12 September, 1945
6. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on two cases reported in -- 'Governor-General in Council v. Debi Sahai', AIR 1946 All 198 (E) and -- 'Governor-General in Council v. Mohd. Badr-i-alam', AIR 1949 All 223 (F) respectively. In the former case it has been held that in a suit to recover damages for non-delivery of a parcel consigned to a railway if the defendant claimed protection under the provisions of Section 75 of the Railways Act, and the plaintiff proved non-delivery, it was incumbent upon the defendant to show that the parcel had been lost or destroyed; the defendant must show that everything possible had been done to trace the missing article, that the whereabouts of the article were not known or must adduce some other evidence from which it can be inferred that the parcel had been lost before the Court can hold in its favour that the parcel had been lost. In the latter case it has been held that:
T.R. Pratt (Bombay) Limited vs M.T. Limited on 11 March, 1938
We are therefore to see whether in the present case the railway company has proved that the goods have been lost. The plaintiff has examined himself and one witness and has sworn that in spite of repeated demands, the railway company did not deliver the bundles in question. For the railway only one witness has been examined. He was at the time an Assistant parcel Clerk at Gadag Station and was on night duty. He has deposed that he unloaded at Gadag, goods booked from Bombay V. T. to Yesavanthanagar near Hospet; that two bundles were unloaded along with, nine other packets on that date at Gadag; that there was no record to show that the two bundles were again reloaded on the forwarding railway and that he could not say whether those two bundles were reloaded at all. The railway company has not examined any other witness nor has it produced any registers or documents to show what happened subsequently to these bundles.
Secy. Of State vs Surjyamal Haribaksh on 22 March, 1934
4. It is urged by the learned Advocate General that the goods in the present case have been lost because they are not forthcoming for delivery and in support of his contention he has relied on a case reported in -- 'Secretary of State v. Surjyamall Haribaksh', AIR 1934 Cal 783 (B). The head-note in that case appears rather misleading. What their Lordships have really said in that case is that it must be decided upon the facts of each case whether loss has occurred within the meaning of Section 75. In that case the goods had been mis-delivered on the basis of a forged telegram purporting to be from the plaintiff as also a forged letter written on the plaintiff's printed note-paper addressed to the Station Master at the station from which delivery had to be made. Loss by theft or by means of fraud was, in their Lordships' opinion, clearly a loss within the meaning of Section 75, and it was not necessary that the goods should have been lost only through inadvertence or involuntarily to enable the railway to claim the benefit of Section 75. In support of their view they referred with approval to a decision reported in -- 'East Indian Rly.
Chandrabhan Prakashnath vs E.I. Ry. Co. on 2 December, 1925
5. For the appellants reliance was also placed on a case reported in -- 'Chandrabhan v. E. I. Rly. Co.', AIR 1926 All 299 (D). 'That case was decided by a single judge who said that it was only when the articles had been lost by the company that it could claim protection under Section 75. He also observed that
"when a certain article delivered to the railway company is not forthcoming for delivery at the destination 'and' its whereabouts are not known, the article is 'lost' within Section 75."
Governor-General In Council vs Mohammad Badr-I-Alam And Anr. on 5 August, 1948
6. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on two cases reported in -- 'Governor-General in Council v. Debi Sahai', AIR 1946 All 198 (E) and -- 'Governor-General in Council v. Mohd. Badr-i-alam', AIR 1949 All 223 (F) respectively. In the former case it has been held that in a suit to recover damages for non-delivery of a parcel consigned to a railway if the defendant claimed protection under the provisions of Section 75 of the Railways Act, and the plaintiff proved non-delivery, it was incumbent upon the defendant to show that the parcel had been lost or destroyed; the defendant must show that everything possible had been done to trace the missing article, that the whereabouts of the article were not known or must adduce some other evidence from which it can be inferred that the parcel had been lost before the Court can hold in its favour that the parcel had been lost. In the latter case it has been held that:
1