Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Governor General In Council vs Musaddi Lal on 31 January, 1961
In the leading case reported in Governor-General in Council v. Musaddi Lai, AIR 1961 SC 725 it was held (at p. 727) :--
Union Of India vs Mahadeolal Prabhudayal on 23 February, 1965
12. This was endorsed with approval in the Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1965 SC 1755. It is true that the expression non-delivery does not appear, as such, in Sub-section (1) of Section 77B though this does, find place in Section 73 and other allied provisions substituted by the Central (Amendment) Act XXXIX of 1961, The reason is apparent. Sub-section (1) of Section 77B does not accord any protection to the railway administration where the parcel or package containing the article or the article as such as, the case may be is shown to be retained with the railway administration. It is not open in other words to the railway administration to withhold the parcel or package or the article with itself and yet claim exoneration from liability. If the railway administration itself, as distinct from its servants or employees has wrongfully detained or misappropriated the article, the benefit of Section 77B cannot be availed.
Union Of India And Anr. vs K. Mansukhram & Sons on 8 September, 1978
In the Union of India v. Mansukharam, AIR 1979 Guj 176 a learned single Judge following the decision of Ismail J. in Union of India v. Jetmall Sukanraj, AIR 1972 Mad 134 ruled that the bar against the liability of railway administration under Section 77B is absolute. But it does not deal with a case of non-delivery because the expression 'non-delivery' does not appear in Sub-section (1) though this finds place in other sections introduced by the Central Act XXXIX of 1961. With respect I am unable to agree with this interpretation. The 'loss' referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 77B is loss of goods; it is loss both to the consignor or the consignee, as the case may be and the Railway administration. The non-delivery in the said case results directly from loss of the goods.
Union Of India, Owning Eastern Railway ... vs Jetmall Sukanraj on 21 April, 1971
In the Union of India v. Mansukharam, AIR 1979 Guj 176 a learned single Judge following the decision of Ismail J. in Union of India v. Jetmall Sukanraj, AIR 1972 Mad 134 ruled that the bar against the liability of railway administration under Section 77B is absolute. But it does not deal with a case of non-delivery because the expression 'non-delivery' does not appear in Sub-section (1) though this finds place in other sections introduced by the Central Act XXXIX of 1961. With respect I am unable to agree with this interpretation. The 'loss' referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 77B is loss of goods; it is loss both to the consignor or the consignee, as the case may be and the Railway administration. The non-delivery in the said case results directly from loss of the goods.
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Uttam Singh Kala Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 May, 1970
In view of the Central Government's notification made under Sub-section (4) already referred to above this provision shall apply in relation to notified articles in the manner as it applies to any other article specified in the second Schedule and contained in any parcel or package. The settled view is that non-delivery is the consequence of loss. The cause of action is furnished not by mere non-delivery but by the loss of the article concerned.
The Police Act, 1949
1