Mulji Dhanji Seit and anr. Vs. the Southern Mahratta Railway Company, Limited, by Its Agent and Manager at Dharwar and the Madras Railway Company by Its Agent and Manager at Madras

Decided On : Aug-20-1903

Court : Chennai

LAW: Section 76, the Indian Railways Act, Section 72, the Limitation Act, the Limitation Act

PERSON: Charles Arnold White, T.K. Station, Calicut Station, Railway Receipt, Railway, Bangalore, Abdul Karim, Bangalore, Abdul Karim, Abdul Karim, Abdul Karim, Abdul Karim, Bangalore, Hun Chand, Bunyal Ali, Henry Conder I.L.R., Danmull

ORDINAL: first, first, 2nd, second, second, 2nd, second, second, 2nd, 7th

CARDINAL: 5, 162, 4, 4, 161, one, 352, 162, one, 25, 352, 25, No.4, 161, 1, 352, 352, 10, 17, 417, 19, 159, 162, 17, half, two, 12

ORG: S.M. Railway, Railway, Railway, Tumkur Station to Calicut Station, Railway, the Bangalore City Station reached Calicut, Invoice No, Invoice No, Railway, Railway, Council, Moheswar Das v., I.L.R., S.M. Railway Company, Railway Company, the ' Risk Note', Company, the ' Risk Note', Allahabad, Company, the 'Risk Note, Counsel of the appellants, British India Steam Navigation Company

NORP: Sandu, Tippamma v., Mohansing Chawan

PRODUCT: Calicut, Calicut, Calicut, Calicut, 210 Tippamma v.

DATE: October 16th, the 1st, 1327, 1327, 1327, 1890, 18 A. 52, 42

FAC: the Governor-General