Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
T. K. Basu
I. S. P. TRADING CO. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
Suit 1642 Of 1967
Decided On : FEBRUARY 21, 1972
RAILWAYS ACT, 1890 - SECTION 139 - COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS EVIDENCE ACT - SECTIONS 3 AND 4 - NEGOTIABILITY OF RAILWAY RECEIPT - OWNERSHIP OF GOODS - JURISDICTION - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, as an endorsee of a railway receipt, sued the Railways for non-delivery of goods. The Railways contended that the plaintiff, as an endorsee, could not maintain the suit, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the suit was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
1. The plaintiff was the owner of the goods upon the negotiation of the railway receipt and other documents of title for valuable consideration. 2. The court had jurisdiction to try the suit as the endorsement of the railway receipt took place within its jurisdiction. 3. The Railways failed to establish that the goods received for dispatch from Bombay were carried to and unloaded at Shalimar. 4. The suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff filed it within three years of the date the goods should have been delivered, plus the period required for issuing a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff, as an endorsee of a railway receipt, could maintain the suit. 2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. Whether the Railways had delivered the goods covered by the railway receipt. 4. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An endorsee of a railway receipt, who becomes the owner of the goods upon negotiation of the receipt and other documents of title for valuable consideration, can maintain a suit against the Railways for non-delivery of goods. 2. The negotiation of a railway receipt is part of the cause of action, and the court within whose jurisdiction the negotiation takes place is competent to entertain and try the suit. 3. The Railways have the burden of proving that the goods received for dispatch were carried to and unloaded at the intended destination. 4. A suit for non-delivery of goods is not barred by limitation if it is filed within three years of the date the goods should have been delivered, plus the period required for issuing a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision: Decree in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 10,855.35 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of judgment. The decretal amount to be paid by the Union of India within three months from the date of judgment. Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.
( 1 ) THE facts of this case lie within a narrow compass.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff on or about the 21st April, 1964 one M. J. Patel and Company of 177, Nagdevi Street, Bombay-3 delivered to the Central Railway at Wadi Bandar (Bombay) 200 pieces of Seamless 1/2" M. S. Pipes C Class measuring 3870 feet for carrying them to Shalimar on the South Eastern Railway. The Railway Receipt bearing No. 822386 was issued on the 21st April, 1964 in which M. J. Patel and Company were shown both as the consignor and the consignee.
( 3 ) ON the 2nd May, 1964 the Union Bank of India Limited, Clive Road, Calcutta as an agent of M. J. Patel and Company endorsed the Railway Receipt to the plain-tiff for valuable consideration.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the goods ought to have arrived at Shalimar between 12th May, 1964 and the 19th May, 1964. The plaintiff duly presented the Rail-Way Receipt to the Railway Administration at Shalimar but failed to obtain delivery of the goods. It is in these circumstances, that the claim for Rs. 10,855. 35 p. is made being the invoice value of these goods.
( 5 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that on the 4th December, 1964 the South Eastern Railway offered the plaintiff some steel pipes which upon inspection was found not to be the goods covered by the aforesaid Railway Receipt. In the circumstances the plaintiff did not take delivery of the goods.
( 6 ) IN the written statements filed on behalf of the Railway Administration the consignment of the goods booked under the Railway Receipt is not denied. The defendant, however, does not admit the specification, quality, quantity or ownership of the goods. The defendant also does not admit the endorsement in favour of the plaintiff. According to the defendant the consignment Under the Railway Receipt was duly tendered to the plaintiff but the plaintiff wrongfully refused to accept delivery. It is further alleged that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit and that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The following issues were framed at the trial :"1. Did M. J. Patel and Company deliver to the Central Railways at Wadi Bandar Bombay 200 pieces of 1/2" M. S. Pipes Seamless 'c' Class measuring 3870 feet for carrying the same to Shalimar. 2. Did the Union Bank of India Ltd. as agent of M. J. Patel and Co. endorse the Railway Receipt No. 822386 dated the 21st April, 1964, for valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff, in Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Were the goods offered for delivery by South Eastern Railway to the plaintiff covered by the aforesaid Railway Receipt. 4. Is the suit barred by limitation. 5. Has this Court jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. 6. To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. "
( 7 ) WITH regard to the first issue the main argument of Mr. N. C. Roychowdhury on behalf of the defendant centred round the absence of the mention of any detailed specification in the Railway Receipt with regard to the goods carried. The Railway Receipt Ext 'b' merely describes the goods as 20 bundles black steel pipes. It does not mention any other description. On this the argument was sought to be founded that the goods which are the subject-matter of the Railway Receipt were not the goods which have been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. Strong comment was also made on the fact that although the Railway Receipt bears the date 21st April, 1964 the challan which was issued by Quiser Business Company out of whose godown these goods, according to the plaintiff, came, mentions the date 22nd April, 1964. It is also submitted on behalf of the defendant that no one has been called on behalf of Quiser Business Company who could have explained as to what were the goods which were brought out of its godown. It was said that if the goods came out on the 22nd April, 1964 as appears from the challan they could not possibly have been consigned to the Railways
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
