Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
Swamy Match Works, Represented By Power ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Owning Southern ... on 17 January, 2001 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Indian & Overseas Trading Company, ... on 7 February, 1986

In Union of India v. Indian & Overseas Trading Co. A.I.R. 1987 All. 1960, it has been held that the consignor has got a right to institute a suit against the railways for loss, damage or non-delivery to the consignee unless the consignee actually takes the delivery at the destination. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Allahabad High Court held that the title in the goods sent by the disputed consignment vested in the seller, plaintiff and therefore, the suit fried by the plaintiff was maintainable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Union Of India vs West Punjab Factories Ltd on 24 August, 1965

In paragraph 8 of the above decision, the Apex Court relies on a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. West Punjab Factories Ltd. (1958)65 A.C.J. 602 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that, Ordinarily it is the consignor who can sue if there is damage to the consignment since the contract of carriage is between the consignor and the railway administration; the mere fact that the consignee is different from the consignor does not necessarily pass title to the goods from the consignor to the consignee, and the question whether title of goods has passed to the consignee has to be decided on other evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 96 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

J.K.M. Yacob Rowther Sons, ... vs Union Of India on 6 March, 1964

14. The Tribunal found that Ex.A-1 invoice contains specific condition printed on its bottom that the goods once sold cannot be taken back and that the responsibility of the first applicant ceases when the goods leave the first applicant's godown and in the circumstances, it should be considered that the first applicant consigned the goods by railways and had also endorsed the railway receipt in favour of Naveen Stores, after the loss of which, the first applicant had executed the indemnity bond Ex.B-3 in favour of the consignee and the title of the goods had passed from the first applicant to the consignee Naveen Stores with the result that the first petitioner and the second petitioner cannot maintain the application for compensation. The Tribunal has also relied upon a decision in Yacob Rowther Sons v. Union of India A.I.R 1965 Mad. 162, and dismissed the application.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1