Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.35 seconds)
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Satish Kumar And Ors. on 23 March, 2000 cites

B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd. vs Tara Prosad Maity on 5 December, 1927

Co. Ltd. v. Tara Prosad Maity, AIR 1928 Cal 504), the direct obligation cast on the Railways by Section 21 of Act 18 of 1954 was repealed later by Act 25 of 1871. To this extent, the Indian statute therefore differs from the English statute. Under Section 13 of the Railways Act, 1890 no such duties are imposed directly on the railway administration by the statute. The section on the other hand only confers a power on the Central Government to issue a requisition to the railway administration i.e. the General Managers or the railway companies (if any) to take steps as per section 13. Obviously, if the Central Government does not think fit to exercise that power and does not issue any such requisition, the occasion for the railway administration to take steps under Section 13, as per the statutory mandate, will not arise. (As to what can be the effect of an omission to exercise this statutory power to issue a requisition, will be dealt with separately under point No. 4). Section 13 of the Indian Railways Act may be noticed :
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next