Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian railway companies act 1895 Sorted by: recent Page 2 of about 77,850 results (0.267 seconds)

Balaji Singh Vs. Chakka Gangamma and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1927Mad85; (1926)51MLJ641

..... 11 ch 449:i never knew an amendment set down or discussed upon the marginal note to a clause. the house of commons never has anything to do with the amendment of the marginal note.11. these remarks apply with great force to indian enactments. the object of the act as stated in the ..... be held to control the clear meaning of the section or to show what the section means when the section is not clear. baggallay, l.j., observed in attorney general v. great eastern railway company (1879) ..... urged by mr. suryanarayana that the marginal note should be considered in considering an act. the marginal note here is 'amendment of section 3, act iv of 1882.' whatever may be the view with regard to certain acts of parliament, in the case of indian enactments the marginal notes are never the subject of discussion and they should not .....

G.i.P. Railway Company Vs. A.B. Tamboli

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR718

..... make his signature one on behalf of the plaintiff, within the meaning of section 72 of the indian railways act. jamshedji's signature was made by him as an agent who had authority to make such a signature. in aldridge v. the great western railway company (1864) 33 l.j.c.p. 161 where a carrier was employed both by the plaintiff ..... for a particular sale, so as to make the goods ' ascertained ' under section 83 of the indian contract act. here there was a definite appropriation of these bales by the plaintiff to the contract, exhibit 68, and that had been assented to by the railway company. according to the ruling of this court in ram-chandra natha v. g.i.p ..... of law, under section 72 of the indian railways act, does not really arise for decision, but, as the case may go further, i think we should give our opinion. it has been laid down by this court, following brabant & go. v. king [1895] a.c. 632, 640, that the obligation of the railway company towards the consignor of goods includes not .....

Best and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Corporation of Madras

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1924Mad420

..... rs. 3,000 a month or upwards, carrying on business as a company, etc, etc.23. the word 'company' is defined in the act as meaning:a company registered under the indian companies' act, 1883, or under the acts of parliament, known under the collective title of the companies' acts, incorporated by an act of parliament, or of the governor-general in council, or by royal ..... to the merits.43. earl cairns gives the reason for a strict construction of taxing acts in the following terms in pryce v. monmouthshire canal and railway co. (1878) 4 a.c. 197:my lords, the oases which have decided that taxing acts are to be construed with strictness and that no payment is to be exacted from the ..... subject, which is not dearly and unequivocally required by act of parliament to be made, probably meant .....

Munna Lal Vs. the East Indian Railway Company

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 82Ind.Cas.772

..... is perfectly clear that the points for determination were brought out by the evidence on the record. the first point to be noted is this. the east indian railway company, were the carriers from howrah to agra. the plaintiff took some sort of objection originally in respect to an alleged damage done to the goods when they ..... arises was brought is 1918 in the court of the subordinate judge of agra by the proprietor of a firm carrying on business at agra against the east indian railway company on the following allegations:(1) that the plaintiff had had consigned to him 101 bales of strawboard from howrah to agra city in two waggons one containing ..... sections 227 and 237 of the indian contract act. here the station master clearly had authority to bind the company by his action. the responsibility of the railway company is thus that of a bailee under sections 151, 152 and 161 of the indian contract act. this is clear from the provisions of section 72 of the indian railways act (ix of 1890).8. it .....

Fazal D. Allana Vs. Mangaldas M. Pakvasa

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR1144; 66Ind.Cas.726

..... the seller and the share certificates property in the shares does not pass to the purchaser.35. section 28 of the indian companies act enacts that shares shall be transferable in manner provided by the articles of the company. article 33 of the articles of association of the central india mills provides that shares will be transferred by an ..... out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. it is enacted by section 28 of the indian companies act that shares in a company shall be moveable property. share certificates are moveable property and are therefore goods within the meaning of section 108 of (he ..... estopped by the said act of his from asserting any right to the shares. mr,, inverarity for the plaintiff contended that there is no estoppel and has relied on france v. clarka (1884) 26 ch. d. 257. tayler v. great indian peninsula railway co. (1895) 4 g. &. j 559. hutchison v. the colorado united mining company and hamill (1886) .....

Gordon Das Chuni Lal Dakuwala Vs. T. Sriman Kanthimathinatha Pillai an ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1921Mad286; 97Ind.Cas.295

..... hearing parties interested, as great prejudice might otherwise arise of which the present case itself is a clear instance. under the rules framed by the high court under the indian companies act, vi of 1882, on 9th april, 1895, to take effect from the 1st of may, 1895, rule 74 provides that such sanction shall be obtained 'upon ..... claim above-referred to and to the sale expensesthe balance being credited to the company.16. costs of all parties in these proceedings should be paid out of the company's assets.krishnan, j.17. these are appeals under section 169 of the indian companies act of 1882 against two orders of the district judge of tinnevelly dated 20th february ..... and 11th april, 1920, passed in the course of the winding-up proceedings of the ; south indian mills co. ltd. the earlier order is one granting sanction to the .....

The Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Company Limited Vs. Matti Su ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1920)38MLJ360

..... legislative authority has sanctioned is inconsistent with any portion of the railways act, and the learned vakil for the respondent had not satisfied me on this point. i must therefore hold that the rule is inter vires. reference may also be made to toonya ram v. east indian railway company i.l.r. (1902) cal. 257 tippanna v. the ..... question. it was contended by the learned vakil for the respondent that a railway company is not competent to limit its liability to less than the minimum care which the indian contract act imposes on bailees. it is now well settled that under the indian law, a railway company has not the liabilities of an insurer but only those of a bailee ..... . see india general steam navigation company v. bhagwan chandra pal i.l.r. (1913) cal. 716 .....

The Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Company, Limited Vs. Mattai ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 55Ind.Cas.754

..... with the main question. it was contended by the learned vakil for the respondent that a railway company is not competent to limit its liability to less than the minimum care which the indian contract act imposes on bailees. it is now well settled that under the indian law, a railway company has not the liabilities of an insurer but only those of a bailee. see india ..... must be reasonable and just. there is great difference between the english law and the indian law on this subject. if i understand the position aright, a railway company in england would be authorised by parliament to make its own rules and regulations. it would be created by an act of parliament and would have full power to regulate its internal management. under these .....

Northern Pacific Ry. Co. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... of the railroad and railway companies, or of their respective vendees, other than as the lands fall within or without the reservation. if they were within the boundaries of the reservation, they were lands of the indians; otherwise, public lands of the united states, and passed to the companies, respectively, under the act of congress and the ..... railway company, for certain described lands. the foundation of the bill is that the patents were issued by mistake as public lands granted to the railroad company under the act of congress dated july 2, 1864 (13 stat. 365, c. 217), the lands actually being, it is alleged by the government, part of the yakima indian reservation ..... states v. winans, supra. it is contended that the northern pacific railway company and the individual appellants are bona fide purchasers, and, as such, entitled to protection under the act of march 2, 1896 (29 stat. 42, c. 39). section 1 of that act provides that suits brought by the united states to vacate and annul any .....

MuThe Venkatachellepati and ors. Vs. Row Sahib Pyinda Venkatachellapat ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1912)23MLJ652

..... to the plaintiff: except on terms indicated by obvious considerations of justice and this view also finds support from mellor j. dictum in clough v. london and northwestern railway company (1871) l.r. 7 ex. 26. in this country there has never been any distinction between equitable and legal jurisdictions and the same court has the power ..... the principle upon which think we ought to act in this case is similar to taht embodied in several statutes of the indian legislature, for instance section 41 of the specific relief act, section 55, subsection 6, clause (b) of the transfer of property act and section 86 of the trusts act. i do not propose to consider whether we ..... taken to the reception of its contents by secondary evidence. mr. ramachandra aiyar, the learned vakil for the appellant, however contends relying upon section 49 of the registration act that the document itself could not be used in evidence at all. section 49 says : ' no document required by section 17 to be registered shall.6. (a .....