Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad115
..... in that case the question was not raised in the lower court that the defendant was not a railway company. if the water-way became a railway within the meaning of the railways act, the company working the boats would be a railway company but the point was not raised and the learned judges of the punjab chief court said that they ..... any rate this little difference does not enable me to say that the petitioner company which is certainly a common carrier under the memorandum of association ceased to be a common carrier quoad the business of taking the goods from the south indian railway out-agency at muttancherry, if they are common carriers the form ii cannot ..... be held to have regulated their liabilities for this portion of the journey and that must be regulated under the carriers act. under the carriers act, negligence is [resumed by the loss of goods, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1961Mad234; (1961)1MLJ57
..... impose; and (d) receiving and delivering, transporting and booking and dispatching goods originating in the vessels in the port and intended for carriage by the neighboring railways, or vice versa, as a railway company or administration under the indian railways act, 1890; (2) the board shall, if so required by any owner, perform in respect of goods all or any of the services mentioned in clauses ..... material facts were; under and by virtue of various statutes, one of which incorporated the harbours docks, and piers clauses act, 1847, a railway company became the owners of a harbour, docks, and quays, a statutory market for fish and a railway in connection therewith. section 33 of that act ran as follows : 'upon payment of the rates made payable by this and the special .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad411; (1937)2MLJ329
..... caution in respect of the use of observations found in judgments relating to the liability of railway companies. in india, actions against these companies have to be dealt with in the light of the provision expressly enacted in section 76 of the indian railways act that:' it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to prove how the loss, ..... destruction or deterioration was caused'.15. even when such actions have to be decided on general' principles (especially in cases of torts) the court has to proceed on the footing that as these companies act under statutory authority, ..... they cannot be called upon to observe precautions which the legislature has not thought fit to enjoin (wakelin v. london and south western railway company (1886) 12 a.c. 41).16. on the facts, i concur in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1913)ILR36Mad65
..... person on whom notice should be served is the agent. see woods v. meher ali bepari (1908) 13 c.w.n. 24; g.i.p. railway company v. dewasi i.l.r.,(1907) bom., 534; great indian peninsula railway company v.chandra bai (1906) i.l.r.. 28 all., 552; nadiar chand shaha v. wood i.l.r., (1908) calc., 194. no doubt ..... other person was authorised to receive notice on behalf of the company. it has been laid down in a series of ..... plaintiff within the period required by section 77 of act ix of 1890 to the traffic manager. section 140 of the act requires that any notice required to be served on the railway administration may be served on the agent of the railway company; no other person is designated for the purpose by the act, the plaintiff adduced no evidence to show that any .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)1MLJ133
..... impose; and(d) receiving and delivering, transporting and booking and despatching goods originating in the vessels in the port and intended for carriage by the neighbouring railways, or vice versa, as a railway company or administration under the indian railways act, 1890.(2) the board shall, if so required by any owner, perform in respect of goods all or any of the services mentioned in clauses ..... of which it has taken charge shall, subject to the other provisions of this act and subject also in the case of goods received for carriage by railway to the provisions of the indian railways act, 1890, be that of a bailee under section 151, 152 and 161 of the indian contract act, 1872, omitting the words 'in the absence of any special contract' in section 152 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)2MLJ212
..... from certain dinghies or smaller boats that were in the neighbourhood.15. the law as to the railway's liability in respect of goods carried has been changed from time to time. under the railways act of 1854 (xviii of 1854), the railway company was answerable for any loss or injury caused by gross negligence or misconduct on the part of ..... l.r. 26 indap 1, wherein, while dealing with a case of fire to a consignment of jute properly put on board a vessel, held that under the indian carriers act, the carrier can avoid the liability if it proves that there was no negligence on its part. but on the evidence in that case the carrier was held ..... cracks, crevices, that the wheels were tested for hot axle and break power, etc. that the duty of the railway does not extend any further and that the railway is not responsible for accidental fire. the learned counsel relied on the following decisions. indian t. & g. i. co. v. union of india : air1957cal190 , fushraj thanmull v. union of india : .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 159Ind.Cas.1005
..... -general argues that as the amount out of which the plaintiff could get a one-third share could be definitely ascertained only after the disputes between the contractor and the railway company as regards the bill had been. fully settled, this suit which was instituted in january 1928 must be held to be premature. we are unable to accede to this ..... case that the arrangement with him was entered into by both the first and second defendants, that the second defendant could not sign it because he still continued in the railway company's service and, therefore, wanted to make it appear that it was the first defendant's concern. the second defendant admits that the terms were settled by him and ..... on the one side and the first and second defendants on the other. in this view, it is unnecessary for us to say whether or not section 233 of the indian contract act has been rightly interpreted in kuttikrishnan nair v. kallil appa nair 51 m.l.j. 311 : 97 ind. cas. 475 : (1926) m.w.n. 729 : 24 l.w. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1932Mad474; (1932)62MLJ720
..... at a later stage he was compelled to modify that contention and to admit that the corporation claims under section 110 of its act to collect companies' tax from companies other than those incorporated under the indian companies act--from companies incorporated anywhere, which by conducting business in madras become liable to that tax. he has urged however that the banks with which we are concerned are ..... or description also is satisfied by these banks, as their shares are transferable, though under certain restrictions. but mr. rajamanikkam has pointed out to us that irr the great northern railway company v. the coal co-operative society (1896) 1 ch. 187, vaughan williams, j., decided that a co-operative society, registered in england under the industrial and provident societies .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1958)2MLJ528
..... following three decisions: in manian patter v. the madras railway company by its agent and manager (1905) 16 m.l.j. 37 : i.l.r. mad. 118, a bench of this court composed of subramania ayyar, o.c.j., and sankaran nair, j., held that neither section 74 of the indian contract act, nor the principles of law laid down in decisions dealing ..... .).8. in abba gani and co. v. trustees of the port of bombay : air1952bom310 , a bench of the bombay high court held that section 74 of the indian contract act does contemplate the case of a deposit made for the due performance of a contract, that such deposit cannot be considered as amount to be paid in case of a ..... to have been ruled more by his heart than by his head observed:taking the entire aspects into consideration, i am not satisfied that there is, justification for the railway which is a benevolent governmental concern to seek to forfeit the entire security deposit taking a view lacking in magnanimity and which does not save the ends of justice.... .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1971Mad53; (1971)IIMLJ41
..... some spark coming from certain dinghies or smaller boats that were in the neighbourhood."the law as the railway's liability in respect of goods carried has been changed from time to time. under the railway act of 1854 (act 18 of 1854) the railway company was answerable for any loss or injury caused by gross negligence or misconduct on the part of their ..... 26 ind app 1 (pc) wherein, while dealing with a case of fire to a consignment of jute properly put on board a vessel, held that under the indian carriers act, the carrier can avoid the liability it is proves that there was no negligence on its part. but on the evidence in that case the carrier was held to be ..... cracks, crevices, that the wheels were tested for hot axle and break power etc. that the duty of the railway does not extend any further and that the railway is not responsible for accidental fire. the learned counsel relied on following decision:1. indian t. & g. i. co. v. union of india,2. fushraj thanmull v. union of india, .and .....
Tag this Judgment!