Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.49 seconds)
Cooch Behar Commercial Company vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 December, 1959 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Gujrat Tobacco Co. And Ors. on 26 August, 1953

He has, however, placed before us a decision , Union of India v. Gujrat Tobacco Co. The facts of the reported decision are quite dissimilar. In this case it is found that the plaintiff executed Risk Notes A and B for a consignment of Biri Tobacco and his claim arises out of damage alleged to have been caused by rain. It was found in that case that the bags in question were placed by the sides of the flap doors of the wagon and not far away from them by the railway staff although it was known to, or at least, ought to have been realised by the railway authorities that rain, being usual at the time of the year when the consignment was being carried, the Biri Tobacco was likely to be damaged by rain water, if placed near the flap doors. On this fact, their Lordships held that although judicial decision on the question whether negligence found in this case would satisfy the test of misconduct, is not uniform, this Court would not interfere in revision with the findings arrived at by the trial Judge who decreed the claim in favour of the plaintiff according to the substantial justice. In these appeals, there is no evidence on record that the short delivery or non-delivery was made on account of any inherent defect in the wagon in which the consignment was placed and, as such, the aforesaid decision does not apply to the present case at all.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Chhatumull Chowthmull vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 23 December, 1954

10. Although the Railway Administration was not, by virtue of the execution of Risk Notes A and. B, bound to disclose how the consignment was dealt with throughout, it has in all fairness laid evidence to show how they were dealt with upto Naihati Railway Station, when the wagon was made over to the Pakistan Railway Administration. There is no room for doubt that upto Naihati, the wagon seals were intact and, as such, loss or damage could not be presumed. In the circumstances, the onus lay upon the plaintiff to show that the loss and short delivery were occasioned on account of the misconduct and negligence of the Railway Administration. There is no material on record to show that the plaintiff has adduced evidence in these cases to prove these facts. Our attention was also invited to a decision , Chhatumull Chowthmull v. Union of India. In this decision it appears that 125 bales of four maunds of Jute per bale were made over to the Station Master, Gaibandha, East Pakistan, for carriage to Cossipur Road Railway Station on the Eastern Railway in the Union of India. The goods were carried by the Pakistan Railway to the border, and the goods were received by the Eastern Railway from the Pakistan Railway. While the goods were lying in the godown of the Eastern Railway they were damaged by rain for which the plaintiff sued the Eastern Railway for recovery of a certain amount. On these facts it was held that the proper conclusion is not that the Pakistan Railway as principal' made the contract with the Eastern Railway but that it made the contract with the Eastern Railway as an agent of the consignor for the carriage of goods to Cossipur Road Railway Station and delivered it to the consignee. Furthermore, it was found that when the goods remained in the possession of the Eastern Railway and held the same on a contract of bailment under the proper rules of the Indian Railways Act and levied charges, the Eastern Railway was liable under the Indian Act as a bailee on the contract of bailment of warehousing the goods and was, therefore, liable for the loss. This decision helps neither of the parties on the facts placed before us and is only of academic interest for the purpose-of these appeals. Neither Mr. Sen nor Mr. Bose could enlighten us on the point as to whether for the laches of a foreign Railway the respondent can be made liable. Ordinarily, the bailee's liability extends to damage caused by the negligence of his servants acting in the course of their employment about the use or custody of the thing bailed; but it does not extend to damage caused by the acts or defaults of third person which he could not by ordinary diligence have foreseen or prevented. But this principle, however, cannot be extended to "the facts of the present case as the damage or loss was-not sustained when the consignment was under the control of the respondent or under the control of any other Railway in India.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Bhupendra Kumar vs Indian Union And Ors. on 1 December, 1950

This argument of Mr. Bose is based upon a decision , Bhupendra Kumar Choudhury v. Indian Union. As regards the goods consigned, 5 bales of goods covered by Railway Receipt No. 912608, it will appear from Ext. A, the Goods consignment Note, that against the column of 'condition of goods' one Girija Sankar made a note as follows: "Bales are press packed of gunny old singal torn and resewn liable to damage". From this expression, it appears that the bales were not packed according to the Tariff Rides as appearing from the General Rule of Goods Tariff at page 493. Such a note regarding the goods covered by RR 912844 (Ext. H) has not been produced in evidence but from the execution of the Risk Note A which is not disputed, it may be presumed that this consignment also was defectively packed and was not, therefore, packed in conformity with the Goods Tariff Rules.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1