Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1925Cal716,90Ind.Cas.426
..... , there is another objection on the ground of limitation. it is conceded that the effect of now bringing the railway company on the record will be the addition of a party to the suit and section 22 of the indian limitation act will apply. the respondent, however, argues that the amendment sought was not to add a fresh party to the ..... being of opinion that the intention of the plaintiff was to sue the railway company, he directed the plaint to be amended and the suit to proceed. the learned district judge did not consider the decision of the trial court under sections 75 and 77 of the indian railways act. in the view which the learned judge took he set aside the decree ..... the defendant mr. young who was the agent of the bengal nagpur railway company at the time, appeared and one of the objections that he took was that the frame of the suit was bad. he also took other objections under sections 75 and 77 of the indian railways act on the grounds that the plaintiff had not declared the value of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal725,(1924)ILR51Cal615
..... the non-delivery of the said goods. the railway company undertook to carry the goods on the terms of a risk note which was signed by the consignor. the risk note was in the form (b) which has been approved by the governor general in council pursuant to section 72(2)(b) of the indian railways act (ix of 1890). it ran as follows:risk ..... ghelabhai punsi v. e.i. ry. (1921) i.l.r. 45 bom. 1201 e.i. ry. v. nil kanta roy (1913) i.l.r. 41 calc. 576 and east indian peninsular railway company v. jitan ram (1923) pat. c.w.n. cas. 85]. in the last case mullick j. observed: 'it is clear that upon this special contract the burden of proof lies ..... of goods consigned to it for transportation, held that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prefer a written notice of his claim to the railway company in accordance with the provisions of section 77 of the railways act. in the course of his judgment richardson j. observed: 'i have indicated that in my view a claim for compensation for non-delivery includes .....
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 : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1935Mad721; 159Ind.Cas.873; (1935)69MLJ93
..... business.8. this observation, we think, would remain true under the terms of the indian act. but it does not answer the question whether the maintenance of the line is part of the ordinary business of a railway company in india. it is common knowledge that railway companies in this country maintain a permanant staff of engineers, whose most indispensable duty it is ..... got on in spite of this. it has been objected that the plea of disobedience to orders has not been set up in the written statement filed by the railway company and, further, that it has not been proved that the accident is 'directly attributable' to the alleged disobedience. apart from these objections, it is fatal to the ..... that, as it is in the main a question of the construction of the act, it will not be unfair to the appellant if we entertain it in appeal.7. sub-section (1) of section 12 provides that where the principal - here the railway company - employs a contracter to execute any work 'which is ordinarily part of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 109Ind.Cas.406
..... at bombay some goods has brought this suit against the railway company and the secretary of state for loss of goods in transit. he gave a notice as required under section 77 of the indian railways act within six months of the loss, that is, on 20th february, 1925. the railway administration was taken over by the secretary of state for ..... 20 c.w.n. 790 it was held that notice given to the collector under section 80, civil procedure code, was sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 77 of the indian railways act. there, the notice was given within six months and the suit was after two months after the date of notice, so that the notice to the collector, under ..... section 80, civil procedure code. as i said, it is open to a party to give a combined notice which would satisfy all the requirements of section 77 of the indian railways act and section 80, civil procedure code. but if a party does not do that he must give a notice under section 77 within six months in order to enable him .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 38Ind.Cas.502
..... c.l.j. 147 harington and carnduff, jj., held that a notice to the divisional traffic manager was not sufficient. in the case of radha kissen chsoni lal v. east indian railway company 21 ind. cas. 970 : 19 c.w.n. 62 fletcher and n.r. chatterjea, jj., held that a notice to the goods superintendent was not sufficient. the law requires that ..... had failed to prove that the case cape within the exception mentioned in the risk note b under which the company would be liable only under certain circumstances.3. we think that the first ground is sound: section 77 of the railways act provides that a notice of claim for compensation must be made within six months from the date of the delivery ..... the second contention of the petitioner as the case made in the plaint was one of loss and would, therefore, come under article 30 of the schedule to the limitation act.5. in this view of the case it is not necessary to consider the third point.6. we made the rule absolute with costs two gold mohurs. .....
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 : Chennai
Reported in : (1898)8MLJ85
..... the time contemplated so as to be available for the special market then existing at karamadai (wilson v. lancashire and yorkshire railway company, 30. l. j. c. p. 232 and illustration q to section 73 of the indian contract act, which illustration appears to be based on the english case). the plaintiff, however, did not allege or prove any such ..... to such conditions. (per hellish, l. j., in parker v. south-eastern railway company, at p. 421, l. r. 2 c. p.. he is therefore precluded from maintaining this suit, unless such a condition is void under section 72 of the indian railways act. the question then is whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants in so ..... . apart from any special contract, the responsibility of a railway company for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods is declared by section 72 of the railways act (ix of 18.90) to be that of a bailee as defined in sections 151, 152 and 161 of the indian contract act, and the last section enacts that 'if, by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1898)ILR21Mad172
..... him at the time contemplated so as to be available for the special market then existing at karamadai wilson v. lancashire and yorkshire railway company 30 l.j. c.p. 232 and illustration (q) to section 73 of the indian contract act, which illustration appears to be based on the english case)]. the plaintiff, however, did not allege or prove any such ' ..... special reason. apart from any special contract, the responsibility of a railway company for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods is declared by section 72 of the railways act (ix of 1890) to be that of a bailee as defined in sections 151, 152 and 161 of the indian contract act, and the last section enacts that ' if, by the fault ..... . l.r. 2 c.p.d. 416. he is therefore precluded from maintaining this suit, unless such a condition is void under 72 of the indian railways act. the question then is whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants in so far as it purports to exonerate the latter from responsibility for delay .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad152; (1931)60MLJ551
..... english courts in the cases cited on behalf of the respondent does not, in my opinion, apply to the present case. the position of a railway company, authorised by its special act to put up any buildings necessary for their purpose in the place covered by the lines marked in the plans deposited, is different from the ..... instal steam-boilers anywhere it liked within that area. in support of this position certain english and indian decisions were referred to.29. on behalf of the respondents great reliance was placed on three english decisions reported in city and south london railway company v. london county council (1891) 2 q.b. 513, london county council v. london ..... rail way. co. v. municipal corporation of the city of bombay i.l.r. (1913) b. 565. section 7 of the indian railways act contains the following provision:notwithstanding. anything in any other act for the time being in force.53. with these words occurring in a particular enactment, it is impossible to say that any other general .....
Tag this Judgment!