Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Gopi Nath And Sons vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 October, 1977 cites

Niranjan Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 12 December, 1972

In Niranjan Lal v. Union of India (AIR 1973 All 303) the principal question for consideration was whether the plaintiff consignor was entitled to claim pre-delivery assessment of damage. It was held that there was no provision in the Goods Tariff No. 31 or in the Railways Act entitling the consignee to have the damages assessed before taking delivery of the consignment. A Railway Administration is not bound to give open delivery on demand of the consignee nor has a consignee a right to refuse to take delivery of the consignment unless the damages were first assessed by the railway authorities. The rule laid down in this case is also of not any assistance in deciding the controversy in the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Managing Agents (Martin And Co.) vs Seth Deokinandan And Anr. on 18 November, 1958

7. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Managing Agents (Martin and Co.) v. Deokinandan, (AIR 1959 MP 276) held that a consignee has no right to insist that the railway officer giving delivery should weigh the goods consigned and make an endorsement as regards the shortage and to refuse to take delivery if the railway officer refuses so to do. The consignee should take delivery of the consignment in the condition in which it is found after giving notice to the delivering officer as to its condition and then sue the Railway Administration for damages.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Bhullan Mal Asa Ram vs Secy. Of State And Anr. on 17 July, 1929

In Bhullan Mal Asa Ram's case (supra) there was no risk note and the consignment travelled at Railway risk. The Bench in the earlier part of the judgment observed that the factor that there was no risk note was not of importance in deciding the general question as to whether the consignee had a right to demand re-weighment before taking delivery. Reference was made to Rule 7,3 of the "East Indian Railway Traffic Code, part 2, Goods Traffic" which provided that a proportion of not less than 20 per cent of all goods should be reweigh-ed at the destination.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. vs East Keshalpur Colliery And Anr. on 20 July, 1962

8. On a consideration of the principles laid down in the cases referred to above and the Tariff Rules framed by the Railway Administration we feel that it is not open to a consignor or consignee to refuse to take delivery and insist on re-weighment or open delivery even when it is indicated that there has been pilferage or a part of the consignment has been lost or damaged in transit. The right to claim open delivery or re-weighment before delivery will primarily be governed by the terms and conditions under which the consignment was booked. It would of course be open to the consignor or consignee to accept delivery and claim damages in case he has suffered damages as a result of the negligence and misconduct of the Railway administration. In the present case since the goods were booked at owner's risk the plaintiff was not justified in insisting on delivery after re-weighment and the Railway Administration legitimately refused to accept the demand of the plaintiff. The view taken by the court below is legally sound and must be affirmed.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1