Ghelabhai Punsi vs The East Indian Railway Company on 19 January, 1921
The case in Ghelabhai v. East Indian Railway Co. A.I.R. 1921 Bom.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)East Indian Railway Company vs Messrs Nathmall Behari Lal on 12 March, 1917
388 and East Indian Railway Co. v. Nathmal Bahari Lal [1917] 39 All. 418. There is often a difficulty in proving wilful neglect because the only evidence of wilful neglect is the evidence which can be extracted in cross-examination from the witnesses for the defence.
East Indian Railway Co. vs Jogpat Singh on 1 February, 1924
7 and in East Indian Railway Co. v. Jogpat Singh A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 725.
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Firm Jiwan And Abdullah on 5 February, 1923
7, was arrived at after relying on Secretary of State for India in Council v. Jiwan Abdullah A.I.R. 1923 All.
The Madras And Southern Maharatta ... vs Mattai Subba Rao on 10 December, 1919
In the Bombay case the case of H.C. Smith Ltd. v. G.W.R. Co. (1922) L.R. 1 A.C. 178 was applied to Risk notes in Form B. On the question as to whether plaintiff can recover only for goods lost by the Company or recover for deterioration of goods, I agree with the decision of this Court in Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. v. Subba Rao (1920) 43 Mad. 617. But I do not quite see how the question as to what kind of loss plaintiff can recover for, has any bearing on the question what the company must prove and what the plaintiff must prove.
The Central India Spinning And Weaving ... vs G.I.P. Railway on 1 December, 1921
It is enough if "the facts proved strongly preponderated in favour of the theory", which fixed the company with liability, (Central India Spinning and Weaving Co. v. G.I.P. Railway A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 46. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.
The Great Indian Peninsular Railway ... vs Firm Bhola Nath-Debi Das on 7 July, 1922
1