Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Dipak Kumar Sen
GANPATRAI SAGARMULL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
Suit 456 Of 1965
Decided On : AUGUST 23, 1974
RAILWAYS ACT - SECTION 80 - JURISDICTION - ENDORSEMENT OF RAILWAY RECEIPT - CAUSE OF ACTION - PLEDGE - OWNERSHIP OF GOODS - DAMAGES - VALUE OF GOODS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff No. 1, a commission agent, obtained a railway receipt from Canara Bank after paying Rs. 5,000/- for eight bags of cardamoms consigned by Plaintiff No. 2 to K. P. Ramaswami Nadar Sons and Co. The plaintiff claimed damages for non-delivery of the goods.
Finding of the Court:
1. The plaintiff No. 2 had no cause of action as the consignor was K. P. Ramaswami Nadar Sons and Co. and not the plaintiff No. 2. 2. The plaintiff No. 1 had a valid cause of action as an endorsee of the railway receipt for valuable consideration and acquired a valuable right to the goods in the nature of a pledge or security. 3. A part of the cause of action of the plaintiff No. 1 arose within the jurisdiction of the court. 4. The value of the eight bags of cardamoms was Rs. 7632.00.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff No. 2 had any cause of action against the defendant. 2. Whether the plaintiff No. 1 had any cause of action against the defendant. 3. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. Whether the goods were lost due to circumstances beyond the control of the defendant. 5. What was the value of the eight bags of cardamoms.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The endorsement of a railway receipt for valuable consideration transfers both the contract of carriage and the title to goods in favor of the endorsee. 2. The negotiation of a railway receipt for value is normally intended to pass the property in the goods. 3. A pledgee has the same remedy as the owner of the goods would have against a third person for deprivation of the said goods or injury to them. 4. A suit for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration, or non-delivery of goods may be instituted in a court having jurisdiction over the place where the goods were booked, the destination station, or the place where the loss occurred. 5. The jurisdiction of civil courts is not to be readily inferred, and there is a presumption against the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts by a statute.
Final Decision: Decree in favor of the plaintiff No. 1 for Rs. 7632.00, interest on judgment at the rate of 6% per annum, and costs.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs, Messrs. Ganpatrai Sagarmull and K. P. Ramaswami Nadar, have instituted this suit against the Union of India, claiming, inter alia, a decree for Rupees 10,017/- in favour of either in the alternative; alternatively, an enquiry into damages and decree for such sum as may be found due, interest, costs and other reliefs.
( 2 ) IT is alleged in the plaint that at all material times M/s. Ganapatrai Sagarmull, the plaintiff No. 1 acted as the commission agents of K. P. Ramaswami Nadar, the plaintiff No. 2 for sale of cardamoms in Calcutta. It is alleged that on or about the 10th April, 1964, the plaintiff No. 2 delivered to the South Eastern Railways eight bags of dry cardamoms for transportation from Virudhu-nagar to Shalimar under a Railway Receipt dated the 10th April, 1964 bearing No. C. 558753 issued in favour of the plaintiff No. 2.
( 3 ) IT is alleged that the plaintiff No. 2 was the consignor as also consignee of the said goods. It is alleged further that the plaintiff No. 2 endorsed the said Railway Receipt in favour of K. P. Ramaswami Nadar Sons and Co, a sister concern of the plaintiff No. 2 and made over the same with intent to pass proprietary interest therein. The said K. P. Ramaswami Nadar Sons and Co. endorsed the said Receipt in favour of Canara Bank Ltd. for valuable consideration with intent to pass proprietary interest therein and made over the same to the Bank. Finally, on or about 21st April, 1964, the said Canara Bank Ltd. for valuable consideration endorsed the said Railway Receipt in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 and made over the same to the latter in Calcutta within the original jurisdiction of this Court also with intent to pass proprietary interest therein.
( 4 ) IT is alleged that prior to the despatch of the said cardamoms the plaintiff No. 1 was also appointed by the said K. P. Ramaswami Nadar Sons and Co. as its commission agents for the sale of the said consignment on account of the latter on a commission at the rate of 21 per cent of the sale proceeds.
( 5 ) IT is alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 as the endorsee of the said Railway Receipt and as commission agents was entitled to receive the delivery of the said goods from the defendant and had proprietary interest in the same. It is alleged that the defendant failed and neglected to deliver the said goods in spite of demands and that by reason thereof the plaintiff No. 1 had suffered loss and damages to the extent of Rs. 10,017/- being the value of the said goods for which the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs. Alternatively it is alleged that in the event the plaintiff No. 1 is not competent to maintain this suit, the plaintiff No. 2 claims the said sum of Rs. 10,017/- by way of damages for non-delivery.
( 6 ) IT is alleged that due notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act. 1890 and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been given.
( 7 ) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the Union of India, it is not admitted that the plaintiff No. 2 delivered, or that the contents of the said bags were, cardamoms as alleged. It is denied that the plaintiff No. 2 was the owner of the goods. The validity of the endorsements in the said Railway Receipt have been denied. It is further denied that any endorsement was made within the original jurisdiction of this Court or that the plaintiff No. 1 had any proprietary interest in the goods despatched or that the plaintiffs had any right in respect thereof. It is denied that there has been any negligence on the part of the defendant. It is alleged that the loss of the goods, in any event, was due to the criminal act of some unknown and undetected persons beyond the control of the defendant. The validity and sufficiency of the alleged notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been denied. It is contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try this suit and the p
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
