SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(SC) 121

K.N.WANCHOO, P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR
Boota Mal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
B.SEN, G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, K.L.GOSAI, P.D.MENON, R.Ganapathy Iyer

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court raises a question as to the interpretation of Art. 31 of the Limitation Act. The appellant had brought a suit in forma pauperis for recovery of a sum of over Rs. 24,000 from the Union of India in connection with non-delivery of certain goods booked with the railway. The appellant was trading in Gujranwala, which is now in Pakistan, under the name and style of G. M. Bootamal and Company and also under the name and style of Gopal Metal Rolling Mills and Company, he being the sole proprietor of both. On August 5, 1947, just before the partition the appellant handed over live consignments to the North Western Railway at Gujranwala for carriage to Jagadhari and these consignments were booked on the same day by two railway receipts. The consignments however did not reach Jagadhari. The appellant made inquiries and when no delivery was made he made a claim on the railway on November 30, 1947 for the price of the goods not delivered. Later, on January 22, 1948, the appellant gave notice to the railway under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which it was said that the goods booked under the two railway






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top