Advanced Search Results

Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 3; Indian Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 100, 103 and 124A; Constitution of India - Article 21; Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 80

Reported in : AIR2004SC2368; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)544; 2004(2)AWC2136(SC); 2004(52)BLJR1179; (SCSuppl)2004(4)CHN86; II(2004)CPJ27(SC); JT2004(4)SC537; 2004(4)SCALE607; (2004)6SCC113

advanced that the complaint was not maintainable under the provision of Sections 100 and 103 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The State Commission has categorically recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of … the concerned Bank. An argument was also advanced that the complaint was not maintainable under the provision of Sections 100 and 103 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The State Commission has categorically recorded a finding that

Shivashankar Textiles rep. by It's Proprietor Vs. the Union of India ( ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : CivilCommercial

Acts : Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 64, 64(1), 64(2), 65, 65(2), 103, 103(1), 103(2) and 106; Railway (Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percentage Charge) Rules, 1990 - Rule 3(1)

Reported in : III(2005)ACC831; 2005(3)CTC534

certificate (Ex.A.2). The applicant/appellant made a statutory claim by issuing a notice (Ex.A.4) under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming a sum of Rs. 22,896/-, being the value of short delivered goods. The Railways replied by Ex.A.7 … extent as claimed by the applicant/appellant. Before the Tribunal, the Railways took the defence that as contemplated under Section 103(2) of the Railways Act read with Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway (Extent of Monetary Liability & Prescription of

Mahipal Battulal JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the General Man ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : 2004(2)ALLMR45; (2004)106BOMLR943

resisted the claim by filing written statement. It is contended that the notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 (Act No. 24 of 1989) (for short the Act) was not served and the appellant did not pay … was not served and the appellant did not pay the percentage charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Act and, therefore, the claim is liable to be dismissed.5. The Railway Claims Tribunal relied on

M/S. Ambika Fashion Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India

Court : Chennai

Subject : Railway

Acts : Railways Act - Sections 106, 103, 102(d)

The applicant has not paid any percentage charge on value at the time of booking nor restricted under Section 103 of the Railways Act. The applicant is not entitled for any indirect or consequential loss under Section 102(d) … were framed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, for determination:-1. Whether there was valid claim under Section 106 of Railways Act, 1989?2. Whether the railways are absolved of its liability for any indirect or consequential loss under Section 102(d) of

Brahm Dev Gupta Vs. Container Corporation of India and Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Act). This FN contained the terms and conditions which clearly mentioned that the terms were governed by the Railways Act, 1989. Any loss or damage, if caused to the cargo shall be dealt with under the said Act. It … independent from the provisions contained in the said Act and his liability cannot be limited in terms of Section 103 of the said Act as has been sought to be set up by the defendant. Submission being that

Shivashankar Textiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Chennai

Subject : InsuranceMotor Vehicles

Reported in : 3(2005)ACC831

A2). The applicant/appellant made a statutory claim by issuing a notice (Ex. A-4) under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming a sum of Rs. 22,896, being the value of short delivered goods. The Railways replied by Ex. … extent as claimed by the applicant/appellant. Before the Tribunal, the Railways took the defence that as contemplated under Section 103(2) of the Railways Act read with Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway (Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of

Union of India, Through General Manager Vs. Shri Sravan Kumar Saoji Go ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Subject : Land Acquisition

or the damages are required to be calculated in accordance with Rule 3 of Section 103 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Rule 3 of Railways (Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percentage Charges) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred

Container Corporation of India vs.united India Insurance Co. Ltd. And ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

appellant/defendant No.1 also denied its liability by giving a reference to the provision of Section 99 of the Railways Act, 1989. An alternative plea was also taken, that at best the liability of the appellant/defendant No.1 under Section 103

Senior Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai and Others Vs. T. ...

Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Subject : Land Acquisition

declared. In case of declaration of the value transportation charges on percentage basis vide section 103(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and Rules thereon had to be paid. It is further contended that the complaint is not maintainable vide

Union of India Through General Manager, West and Others Vs. Yash Indus ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Subject : MRTP

declared by the Complainant, at the time of booking. As per the provisions of Section 103 of the Railways Act, 1989, for any consignment entrusted to Railway Administration for carriage by Railway and the value of such consignment has