Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.14 seconds)Union Of India (Uoi) (As Representing ... vs Meghraj Agarwalla And Anr. on 11 February, 1958
The mere fact that something was not delivered, for example, a part of a consignment, is not sufficient to show that there was 'loss' within the meaning of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, Union of India v. Meghraj Agarwalla, ; and proof of non-delivery is by no means conclusive evidence as to whether or not a loss has occurred. E. I. Rly. v. Jogpat Singh .
G.I.P. Ry. Co. Ltd. vs Jesraj Patwari And Ors. on 24 June, 1927
Next, Mr. Bose has urged that by mentioning 'conversion' in the plaint there was practically an admission of loss. That conversion by the servants of the railway would constitute "loss" is beyond question in view of the decisions in G. I. P. Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Jesraj Patwari , Secy. of State v. Suryamal Haribaksh and B. N. Rly.
1