Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad476; (1956)IMLJ395
..... statute, extortionate; and i think that the rights and remedies of a person made to pay a charge beyond the limit of equality imposed by the statute on railway companies acting as carriers on their line must be precisely the same as those of a person made to pay a charge beyond the limit imposed by the common law on ..... patty is compelled to effect in each case which one of the two methods of procedure he would adopt. there are no provisions in the indian railways act which has given similar power to the railway rates tribunal or a similar right to the aggrieved person,13. reference may be made to one fact on which some reliance was placed by ..... there may be a charge of undue discrimination.16. the complainant's learned counsel's next argument related to the charge that the bhadravati bombay rate contravened section 28, indian railways act when compared with the bisco-bombay rate. the grievance is based on the following facts: from risco to bombay, a distance of 1155 miles, while the tariff .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 75Ind.Cas.750; (1923)45MLJ424
..... by mr. edmund elmar mack, a member of the indian civil service, against the madras and southern mahratta railway co., ltd., for damages for personal injury sustained by him on the early morning of the 30th august, 1921 and alleged to be due to the negligence of the defendant railway company in keeping an unprotected and unlighted pit on the platform ..... , deputy director of survey, at nellore, and the party consisted of mr. bateman and mrs. bateman, miss baxely, mr. lewis, district superintendent of police, mr. ramamurthi, the acting collector and the plaintiff. m the train by which the plaintiff was to go to madras en route for bellary was due to arrive at 2-15 a.m. and ..... they are doubtless privileged documents the privilege was thereby completely waived. the documents are damaging to the railway company but i desire to say that in the conclusion to which i have come i place no reliance l>n them whatever. i am acting on the evidence of mr. mack and mr. lewis which i do not consider to have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.977
..... let us see how these questions have in the meantime been dealt with in india.49. the corresponding indian act is the common carriers act of 1865, based mainly on the english act of 1830. before 1865, there was act xviii of 1854 relating to railway companies, and, it may be noticed that, the right of limiting their liability by private contract even when ..... the common law liability there may be an agreement with a good consideration. (see peek v. north staffordshire railway company 10 h.l.c. 473. i doubt, for the reasons already pointed out, whether this is permissible under the indian contract act. but, in any event, it is for the shipowner to offer the alternative rates for the owner to ..... de france 6 c.k 227, and of the bombay high court in kuverji tulsidas v. the great indian peninsula railway company 3 b., at p. 109. a shipowner is a bailee within the terms of that section. under section 151 of the act, the defendants, therefore, are bound to take as much care of the goods as a man of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ538
..... sub-section (1) of section 58 if the loss, destruction or deterioration is in any way brought about by the false account. two conditions are necessary before the railway company can be protected from loss. in the first place the description must be found to be materially false and to have been delivered under sub-section (1) of ..... interesting point for determination is whether if plaintiff, though under no legal obligation to value the contents of the box, does so of his own accord, the railway company is legally liable to pay him compensation in excess of his own valuation at the time of consignment. the only explanation plaintiff has given for his valuation of the ..... other office purposes can fall. the learned judge was guided by an old bombay decision in ishwardas gulabchand v. the great indian peninsula railway co. i.l.r. (1878) 3 bom. 120 and section 78 of the railways act. the bombay decision is an interesting one. on the facts in that case, a plaintiff consigned 12 bags of sugar candy .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad783; (1952)1MLJ235
..... for damages for short delivery of goods consigned to him through the railway company on 18th september 1943. the suit was instituted on 23rd march 1944 after the issue of the notice required under section 77 of the indian railways act. on 1st april 1944, the south indian railway was taken over by the govt. of india and by a notification ..... dated 14th october 1944, the general manager was authorised to act for and on behalf of the central government as from 1st april 1944 ..... in all judicial proceedings in which the south indian railway administration might be concerned.on 19th june 1944, on an application by the plaintiff-appellant, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad795; (1952)IIMLJ24
..... the notice of the claim made by the plaintiff since as pointed out in 'shamsul huq v. secy. of state', 57 cal 1286 section 77 of the railways act is only intended to give an opportunity to the railway company to make satisfactory investigation.'no doubt, in that case, a notice was given to the superintendent-general within six months and not to the ..... fact, no question can be raised either.3. the main question that has been argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that section 77 of the indian railways act has not been complied with. section 77 lays down thus:'a person shall not be entitled to a refund of an over-charge in respect of animals or goods carried ..... my opinion, be only an irregularity.....'he further goes on to observe: 'i am of opinion that 'woods v. mehar ali', 4 mad l t 427; 'perianan chetty v. south indian rly. co.', 22 mad 137; 'm & s m rly. co. v. bhimappa', 23 m.l.j. 511 and 'sesha-chalam chetty v. traffic manager, the nizam's guaranteed state rly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)2MLJ256
..... the view was held in these cases that section 70 of the indian contract act would apply.26. there is one other view which may be relevant for our purpose, laid down in radhakrishna iyer v. secretary of state for india : air1936mad930 , and s.i. railway company v. madura municipality : air1945mad427 , the fact in radhakrishna iyer ..... iyer and other sugarcane growers.15. after the above finding, the learned district judge held that under section 70 of the indian contract act, the plaintiff was entitled to compensation from the defendant-company.16. then there arose the question of the quantum of compensation. he noted that the plaintiff wanted compensation computed at the ..... a question of law within the meaning of section 100, civil procedure code. in the application of section 70 of the indian contract act, it is relevant to consider whether the benefit received by the defendant-company is indirect. considering the requirement that the approach in such a case, is not the same as the approach .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ299
..... parcels in which the articles first mentioned were placed. the decision of the bombay high court in pundlik udaji jadhav v. s. m. railway company i.l.r. (1909) bom. 703 : 3 i.c. 964, was followed.12. in east indian railway company v. changa khan (1915) 28 i.c. 245, a bench of the calcutta high court, following pundlik udaji jadhav v. s. ..... view taken by a bench of the bombay high court in pundlik udaji jadhav v. s. m. railway company i.l.r. (1909) bom. 703 : 3 i.c. 964, where the bench held that the protection given by section 75 of the act extended to the whole parcel in which silk goods such, as were mentioned in the second schedule were ..... the loss, destruction or deterioration must be of the entire parcel or package which contained the articles which were required to be declared and insured under section 75 of the act. in the context, however, we feel that the loss, destruction or deterioration contemplated in the section of the parcel or package might be either partial or total, so far .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1908)18MLJ497
..... us see how these questions have in the meantime been dealt with in india.48. the corresponding indian act is the common carriers act of 1865 based mainly on the english act of 1830. before 1865, there was act 18 of 1854 relating 10 railway companies, and it may be noticed that the right of limiting their liability by private contract even when ..... discharging him from the common law liability there maybe an agreement with a good consideration--see peek v. north staffordshire railway company . i doubt, for the reasons already pointed out, whether this is permissible under the indian contract act. but in any event, it is for the shipowner to offer the alternative rates for the owner to make his ..... (1880) c. 227, and of the bombay high court in kuverji tulsidas v. the great indian peninsular railway company i.l.r (1878) b 109. a shipowner is a bailee within the terms of that section. under section 151 of the act, the defendants, therefore, are bound to take as much care of the goods as a man of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad341; 45Ind.Cas.485; (1918)34MLJ553
..... the second defendant company are carriers and i think they are, it is clear that article 31 of the limitation act would apply equally to them. it is not necessary for the purposes of ..... agent of the other and the traffic is carried for the joint benefit of both companies either company may be sued on at the option of the consignor; gill v. manchester, sheffield & lincolnshire ry. co. (1178) l.r. 8 q. b 186 the great indian peninsular railway co. v. b. badhakishan khusaldas i.l.r (1881) b 371.14. if, however, ..... navigation co. calcutta i.l.r (1915) m. 1 and also the cases as regards carriage of goods over railways having continuous lines. gill v. manchester sheffield and lincolnshire railway co. (1873) l.r. 8 q.b. 186; the great indian peninsular railway co. v. radhakisan khusaldas i.l.r. (1881) b. 371.4. the proper inference appears to be that .....
Tag this Judgment!