Advanced Search Results

Union of India (Uoi), by Its General Manager, Sc Railway Vs. Alapati V ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railway Act, 1989 - Sections 77, 106, 106(1) and 106(2); Railway Administration Act - Sections 106

Reported in : 2006ACJ1014; 2004(4)ALD493; 2004(5)ALT500

to costs. Civil - non compliance of provision - Sections 77, 106, 106 (1) and 106 (2) of Railways Act, 1989 and Section 106 of Railway Administration Act - claimant purchased teak logs and entrusted to railway administration -

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and an ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 72, 72(3), 73, 77, 77C, 77C(4), 78 and 78B; Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 200; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 78B and 80; Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 200; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 151, 152 and 161; Carriers Act, 1865; Explosive Rules; Tariff Rules

Reported in : 2005(5)ALD85

elaboration and the same had been dealt with in detail by the Trial Court. Section 200 of the Railways Act, 1989 (Act No. 24 of 1989) had repealed the Indian Railways Act, 1890. However, the said Act came into … goods or animals shall have to be carried with proper care and without any negligence or misconduct. Even Section 77-C does not completely absolve the Railway Administration of its responsibility when any goods tendered to the railway administration

Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Chennai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 38, 83, 84 and 99; General Rules - Rule 152

Reported in : I(2001)ACC194

(d) and Clause (h) of Section 46-C'. 16. Section 99 is the corresponding provision under the present Indian Railways Act, 1989 and it is the same as Section 77 of the old Act, except for the omission of Sub-section

T.S.T. Kaznavi Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its Chairman,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Property

Acts : Land Acquisition Act; Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 2(17), 2(28), 2(29), 2(32), 2(67), 2(72), 2(73), 2(77), 39(1), 67(2), 68, 164, 173, 174, 175, 185 and 185(2); Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Sections 10, 16, 16(1) and 16(3); Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 2, 12 to 19 and 51; Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Sections 42 and 51; Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Atomic Energy Act, 1962; Railways Act, 1989; The Works of Licensees Rules, 2006; Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 188

Reported in : (2008)2MLJ703

the Act, which relates to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 or the Railways Act, 1989. The provisions are also stated to be in addition to and not in derogation of other laws, under … Act.2. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has filed counter affidavit. According to the respondent Electricity Board, as per Sections 164 and 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Board has the power of the 'Telegraph Authority' under

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Santosh Kumar Mund

Court : Orissa

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 77 and 78B

Reported in : AIR2001Ori3

railway receipt and there is no proof of the said allegation. He further held that in view of Section 77 (2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 the Railway cannot be burdened with the responsibility in view of … the same. Ultimately, the goods were auctioned. The respondent thereafter served notice under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act and filed the original applications claiming the amount as stated above. O.A. No. 201/91 (M.A. No. 715/97) was

Union Of India Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 22 i. Relevant Statutory Scheme and Provisions .............................................. 22 ii. Scope of Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 ........................................ 29 a. What is meant by an “Overcharge”?. ....................................................... 35 b. Concept of an ‘Overcharge’ and an … demurrage and wharfage charges, a claim for its refund would clearly come within the scope and ambit of Section 77. It would be a claim for refund of an overcharge in respect of goods carried by railway within

Shree Shyam Agency. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Railways

Acts : Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Sections 16, 82A; Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 124A, 61, 62, 87(2); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 123,124; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 22; Railways (Manner of Delivery of Consignments AND Sale Proceeds in the Absence of Railway Receipt), Rules, 1990

Reported in : (2013)1SCC283

shall also exercise, on AND from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers AND authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any … in the opinion of the railway administration to receive the goods, in such manner as may be prescribed."Section 77 deals with the power of railway administration to deliver goods or sale proceeds thereof in certain cases which

Rajendra Textiles, Jodhpur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 77(2); Railways (Amendment) Act, 1989 - Sections 99

Reported in : 2003ACJ1163; AIR2002Raj226; 2002(4)WLC748; 2002(4)WLN41

the appellant is not entitled to get compensation because of the provisions of Section 77(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').6. While deciding Issue No. 5, which relates to entitlement of the

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Gopaljee

Court : Patna

Subject : InsuranceMotor Vehicles

resisted by the appellant on a pleading that the appellant was protected by Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and hence the claim of the consignor was not maintainable.4. Section 73 of the Act lays down

Unio of India (Uoi) Vs. Gopal Jee

Court : Patna

Subject : Service

give full effect to the intention of the Legislature. Madras High Court held that Section 77-B of the Railways Act cannot afford any protection to the railway administration against the claim for compensation in absence of any cogent