Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Indian Railways Act, 1890.
The Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1983
Section 152 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Firm Mahesh Glass Works vs Governor General In Council on 24 February, 1950
Desai, J., of the Allahabad High Court, in Firm Mahesh Glass Works (B) (supra), observed, "A bare article like a car or a silver bar or a bangle cannot possibly be described as a parcel or package; in order that an article can be said to be 'contained' in a parcel or package, it is necessary that some other article is used with it in order to protect it, or cover it, or keep it in position or keep it together With another article or articles."
Section 161 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in Indian Railways Act, 1890. [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Secretary Of State vs Gopalmal Purusotham Das on 9 December, 1930
10. Mr. P.K. Bose, however, has urged on behalf of the Railway Administration, that the word "parcel", or, "package" in Section 75 (1) of the Act must, under Section 13 (2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, be taken to include the plural as well; and, therefore, his contention is that if several parcels or packages are booked under one luggage receipt, as contemplated by Section 74 of the Act, then the value of the entire consignment or luggage, consisting of the several packages or parcels, has to be declared collectively, and not individually under Section 75 (1) of the Act, and, therefore, if one of such packages booked under one consignment or luggage receipt under Section 74 does not contain any articles mentioned in the second schedule of the Act, but the other parcels or packages contain such scheduled articles, then also the Railway Administration will not be liable "for the loss of the parcel which contained non-scheduled articles only. In support of "his contention, he has relied on E. I. Rly. v. M.K. Boy, ILR 37 All 463: (AIR 1915 All 328) (E), Pundalik Udaji Ja-dhav v: Agents, S. M Rly Co. ILR 33 Bom 703 (F), G. I. P. Rly. Co. v. Sham Manohar, ILR 34 All 422 (G), and, Secretary of State v Gopalmal Purusotham Das, AIR 1932 Cai S: (ILB 58 Cal 989) (H).
Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company vs Sham Manohar And Ors. on 19 March, 1912
10. Mr. P.K. Bose, however, has urged on behalf of the Railway Administration, that the word "parcel", or, "package" in Section 75 (1) of the Act must, under Section 13 (2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, be taken to include the plural as well; and, therefore, his contention is that if several parcels or packages are booked under one luggage receipt, as contemplated by Section 74 of the Act, then the value of the entire consignment or luggage, consisting of the several packages or parcels, has to be declared collectively, and not individually under Section 75 (1) of the Act, and, therefore, if one of such packages booked under one consignment or luggage receipt under Section 74 does not contain any articles mentioned in the second schedule of the Act, but the other parcels or packages contain such scheduled articles, then also the Railway Administration will not be liable "for the loss of the parcel which contained non-scheduled articles only. In support of "his contention, he has relied on E. I. Rly. v. M.K. Boy, ILR 37 All 463: (AIR 1915 All 328) (E), Pundalik Udaji Ja-dhav v: Agents, S. M Rly Co. ILR 33 Bom 703 (F), G. I. P. Rly. Co. v. Sham Manohar, ILR 34 All 422 (G), and, Secretary of State v Gopalmal Purusotham Das, AIR 1932 Cai S: (ILB 58 Cal 989) (H).
1