Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-20-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ori75
..... months from the date of the sale, that is august 16, 1954 which expired on november 16, 1954. the petitioners sought to take protection under section 18 of the indian limitation act (ix of 1908) on the ground of alleged fraud. the rent suit deputy collector dismissed the said application as 'prima facie time-barred' finding that the applicants had ..... fraud played in the petitioners keeping them in the dark as to what was taking place in the rent suit and in the execution proceedings. section 18 of the indian limitation act reads as follows:--effect of fraud, 'where any person having a right to institute a suit or make an application has, by means of fraud been kept ..... fraud in publishing or conducting the sale so as to get relief under section 228 (2) of the orissa tenancy act. both the courts below overlooked tbe aspect that the meaning of fraud in section 18 of the indian limitation act has some other context different from the meaning; and import of the word 'fraud' in section 228 (2) of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-17-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ori119; 26(1960)CLT74
..... goods would be traced out and duly delivered, then time would run from the date on which the railway finally declined to deliver the goods. thus, in south indian rly. co. v. narayana iyer, air 1924 mad 567, a railway company after some correspondence finally told the claimant that the bale said to have been consigned could, not be delivered ..... goods the plaintiff does not make a demand for delivery ot goods, but makes a claim for compensation for the goods in accordance with section 77 of the railways act it cannot be said that because the plaintiff had made no demand for delivery of the non-delivered goods but only a claim for compensation which resulted in ..... be taken as authority for the proposition that in all cases of short delivery the starting point for limitation under article 31 of the limitation act will be the date on which the railway finally repudiated the claim--irrespective of the nature of the consignment, the manner in which it was booked, the route through which the wagons .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Apr-07-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ori100
..... the extent of 14 maunds and 10 seers were damaged. thereafter the plaintiff put in claim under section 77 of the indian railways act (act iv of 1890) (hereinafter referred to as the act) and received a reply from the railway administration under the date 13-2-1956 that the matter was receiving their attention. since the claim was not settled, the ..... which the goods have to pass and has nothing to do with the consignor. he may sue the company to which the goods are delivered or the company on whose railway the loss, injury, destruction or deterioration occurred or both.in the case of jankidas marwari v. governor general of india in council, air 1946 pat 336, fazl ..... ali, c.j. and pande, j. took a similar view, that where goods are consigned at the railway of one administration and are .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-23-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ori103
..... that rule 31(2) is based on sound reasoning.5. from the scheme of the railways act it appears that for general working of the railway, the railway company has been given by the act itself certain powers including power of making general rules consistent with the act for the purpose, among others, of regulating tho terms and conditions on which the ..... onus cannot take advantage of section 106 of the indian evidence act. in placing the onus on the plaintiff it was the public policy to give protection to the railway. the only case where the railway is to adduce evidence is in case of non-delivery. section 80 of the railways act places absolute onus on the plaintiff to prove damage. ..... while the goods were on the lines of the defendant-railway. the plaintiff having failed to discharge the onus cannot now take advantage of section 106 of the indian evidence act, thus it is now the settled law that section 106 and section 114 of the evidence act have no application in a case where the onus is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-24-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ori154
..... drew my attention to section 3 (6) of the railways act defining 'railway administration'' or 'administration', in the case of a railway administered by the government to mean the manager of the railway and includes the government and, in the case of a railway administered by a railway company means the railway company. one interpretation is that section 80 o the civil procedure code ..... provisions of section 77 as to constitute notice against the other railway administration. thus, where the plaintiff, in that particular case, who had consigned goods from the station p on the east indian railway to be delivered to the station s on b. n. railway (as it then was) sent a notice of claim for damages ..... decision cited above. in fact, the two appeals were referred, to a division bench in view of the conflict between the decisions in kishanlal rupchand and co. v. indian dominion, (1955) 1 mad lj 79: (s) air 1955 mad 151 and governor general in council v. ajith bhai jayantilal and co. (1952) 2 mad. .....
Tag this Judgment!