Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs West Punjab Factories Ltd on 24 August, 1965
In The Union of India v. The West Punjab Factories Ltd. it was held that ordinarily it is the consignor who can sue if there is damage to the consignment, because the contract of carriage is between the consignor and the railway administration; where however, the property in the goods carried has passed from the consignor to the consignee, the latter may sue; and whether title to goods has passed from the consignor to the consignee depends on the facts of each case. In the instant case, of course, the plaintiffs were not the consignor nor the consignee. One Ramkishun Sah was the consignor and the consignment was made to self as consignee. But both the courts below have found, on the basis of reliable evidence, that the title to the goods had been transferred by the consignor to the plaintiffs, soon after the consignment had been booked. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it must be held that the plaintiffs were the owners of the goods and they were entitled to sue the Union of India for compensation.
Jetmull Bhojraj vs The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. ... on 2 May, 1962
8. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in Jetmull Bhojraj v. Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd. and Ors. . In that case a consignment of. 259 bales of cloth had been booked at a railway station on the then Great Indian Peninsula Railway to a railway station on Darjeeling Himalayan Railway on May 10, 1946. Only 169 bales of cloth, however, reached the destination on or about June 7, 1946. There was some correspondence with the consignee and the officers of the Darjeeling Railway administration. The consignee-plaintiff wrote a letter on December 21, 1946 to the Railway authorities that they had come to know that the remaining 90 bales had subsequently arrived at Giellekhola "in a very damaged condition". In another letter dated January 29, 1947, the plaintiff-appellant wrote that the cloth had arrived Giellekhola nearly one month back in "hopeless condition". In the plaint of the suit the plaintiff stated: "Before the receipt of those bales at Giellekhola in December, 1946, it was not possible for the plaintiff to know about the aforesaid damaged condition of those bales, but no sooner the same arrived, the fact that the same arrived in hopelessly damaged condition was brought to the notice of the railway authorities concerned". On these facts, the majority judgment of the Supreme Court observed:
Union Of India vs Amar Singh on 28 October, 1959
In Union of India v. Amar Singh , this Court has held that the burden would be on the railway administration who want to non-suit the plaintiff on the ground of limitation to establish that the loss or injury occurred more than one year before the institution of the suit. No attempt has been made on behalf of the D.H. Railway to show that the damage in fact occurred more than one year before the suit was instituted. All that is said on their behalf is that the appellant knew in December, 1946 that the consignment appeared to be damaged. In this connection reliance is placed on Ext. B which is a letter addressed by the appellant to the D.H. Railway on December 21, 1946. What is stated there is that the consignment has arrived at Giellekhola in 'a very damaged condition'. This has reference to the outer covering or the package and not to the contents. Moreover, delivery was given nearly two months after this and it is not possible to say whether the damage which was noticed at that time had already been caused before December 21, 1946 or was caused thereafter. The D.H. Railway which had the custody of the goods could alone have been in a position to say, if at all, as to when the damage was caused. Upon the material before us it is not possible to say that the suit was instituted beyond one year of the accrual of the cause of action....
Secretary Of State vs Messrs Neaz Ali Hamid Ali on 5 December, 1934
11. Mr. Bose ultimately relied on the decision of Mr. Justice Bennet of the Allahabad High Court in Secretary of State v. Neaz Ali Hamid Ali A.I.R. 1935 Alld. 407. In that case a consignment of 30 bags of rice was sent to the plaintiffs from Saharanpur to Agra and arrived on the 3rd August, 1931. There was a letter dated the 5th August, 1931, from the plaintiffs to the defendants alleging that the consignment had been found badly damaged and in deteriorated condition owing to the wilful negligence of the railway authorities. The damage was stated to have been caused by water to the consignment of rice and there was no suggestion in the plaint or in the judgment of the lower court that further damage was caused at any later date. His Lordships said that it was clearly shown by admission of the plaintiffs' letter of 5th August, 1931 that the loss had occurred prior to that date and, therefore, the period of limitation was counted from that date and the suit was time barred. This was a judgment in civil revision and it is not clear from this judgment whether there was any evidence on the record that the plaintiffs in that case were aware or not, before the open delivery of the goods on the 15th August, 1931, of the exact extent of the damage to the goods for which the plaintiffs could sue the railway for compensation. Moreover, in the instant case, the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, referred to above, are more appropriate.
1