Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All675
..... held in several oases, e.g., secretary of state for india v. firm jiwan and abdullah a.i.r. 1923 all. 426, and east indian railway company v. firm kishan lal tirkha mal a.i.r. 1924 all. 7, that the company cannot claim exemption under the risk note unless it establishes that the goods have actually been lost to the ..... this is a revision by the east indian railway company from a decree for damages passed by the court of small causes at bareilly. the learned judge has overruled the objection of the railway company that they were protected by the risk note, form 'b' on the ground that person who delivered the goods to the company and signed the risk note was ..... it was not signed by him or his authorized agent. section 72, sub-section (2) of the indian railways act provides that such agreement should be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person sending or delivering to the railway administration. it is therefore, clear on the language of the section that the signature of the person who .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All538; 74Ind.Cas.300
..... film styled the firm of kidar nath-raj narain from a decree of the small cause court judge of agra, dismissing their claim for damages against the east indian railway company.2. the case for the plaintiff firm was that they bought some articles at calcutta through their agent, who consigned three boxes to them at agra. one ..... came under the excepted articles, mentioned in the second schedule of the railway act under clause (d). the learned judge of the small cause court hold that the lost goods fell under clause (d); and the consignor having chosen to give the risk-note x, the railway company was not liable; the claim was accordingly dismissed. in revision the ..... is that the lost goods do not fall under clause (k) of the second schedule of the railway act. if they do not fall under the said clause, the giving of the risk note x by the consignor does not exonerate the railway company from liability. the clause (k) mentions the articles which are described as 'excepted articles '. they are .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1927All400
..... same at his own risk. as was pointed out in the case of jalim singh kotary v. secretary of state [1904] 31 cal, 951, thata railway company has cast upon it by section 72 of the indian railways act the duties of an ordinary bailee, but it may determine the conditions under which those duties may vest.7. it appears to me that the proper ..... the respondent that the rule in question is inconsistent, with section 72 of the indian railways act, as that rule is calculated to limit the responsibility east on a railway company as a common carrier by that section. section 72 of the indian railways act deals with the measure of the general responsibility of a railway administration as a common carrier of animals and goods, and provides that agreements .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1979All287
..... to show that the accident had taken place because of some wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration.14. having regard to the state of law as it prevailed before insertion of section 82-a in the indian railways act, it is not disputed that liability of the railway company to pay compensation for the death or loss of the nature specified ..... in section 82-a was enforceable in accordance with the law of torts whereunder the railway company could have been made liable for the death of or injury to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All273; 85Ind.Cas.474
..... does not follow by any means that there is any effective distinction for the purposes of sections 72 and 77 of the railways act and of the risk-note form b. mr. justice jwala pershad in the patna case east indian railway company v. kali charan a.i.r. 1922 pat. 106 to which i have already referred, gave as one reason for holding ..... raised the defence that six months notice had not been given to the agent of the railway. but this defence wag rejected, the judge of the small cause court relying on east indian railway company v. kali charan a.i.r. 1922 pat. 106 a case in which mr. justice jwala prasad of the patna high court held that there is a difference ..... that for the purposes of section 77 there is a material distinction between 'loss' and 'non-delivery,' that in the case of the former the railway required notice in order to give .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1915All284; (1915)ILR37All273
..... provisions and made them applicable, not only to disputes between different companies but also to disputes between a company and an individual. it was evidently the intention of the indian legislature to do much the same thing by the indian companies act of 1882. sections 97-122 are for the most part adaptations of the railway companies arbitration act to which we have already referred. it was neglected, however ..... , to expressly make these sections applicable to disputes between companies and individuals. it seems as if this is an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1926All552
..... parcel had been lost within the definition of loss accepted in such cases as the secretary of state v. jiwan air 1923 all 426 and east indian railway company v. kishen lal trikhamal air 1924 all 7. the railway alleged loss and the first court found that it was an established fact that the parcel was lost in transit. it is clear from the ..... -appellants from delhi to pilibhit. the parcel never reached its destination and the plaintiffs claimed its value. among other defences taken by the railway one is based on section 75 of the railways act. that section lays down that the railway shall not be liable for the loss of a package containing any articles mentioned in the second schedule which include the precious metals .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 28Ind.Cas.384
..... provisions arid made them applicable not only to disputes between different companies, but also to disputes between a company and an individual. it was evidently the intention of the indian legislature to do much the same thing by the indian companies act of 1882. sections 97-122 are for the most part adaptations of the railway companies arbitration act to which we have already referred. it was neglected, however ..... , to expressly make these sections applicable to disputes between companies and individuals. it seems as if there was an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All778
..... provinces under section 277, companies act, would be that of an 'unregistered company. section 270 of the act defines an 'unregistered company' thus:for the purposes of this part, the expression 'unregistered company' shall not include a railway company incorporated by act of parliament or by an indian law, nor a company registered under the indian companies act, 1866 (x [10] of 1866), or under any act appealed thereby, or under the indian companies act, 1882 (vi [6 ..... ] of 1882), or under this act, but save .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All555; [1954]24CompCas388(All)
..... include any partnership, association or company consisting of more than seven ..... of the term 'un-registered company' in section 270 which runs as follows :'the expression 'unregistered company' shall not include a railway company incorporated by act of parliament of the united kingdom or by an indian law nor a company registered under the indian companies act, 1866 (10 of 1866) or under any act repealed thereby, or under the indian companies act, 1882 (6 of 1882), or under this act, but save as aforesaid, shall .....
Tag this Judgment!