Chhaganlal Himatlal Vs. the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. shah, j.1. the only point urged in these applications by way of objection to the decision of the lower appellate court is that, in virtue of order xxxv, rule 5 of the civil procedure code, it was not competent to the railway company to institute an interpleader suit as it was an agent of the consignors. no authority has been cited in support of the proposition that the railway company by accepting goods for carriage becomes an agent of the consignors within the meaning of this rule. we do not think that the provisions of the indian railways act and the indian contract act lend any colour to such a contention; on the contrary, they indicate that by accepting the goods the company enters into an independent contract with the consignors for the carriage of the goods.2. the result, therefore; is that the rules must be discharged with costs.