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

1971 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Ramaprasada Rao, J.
Madurai K. Rengiah Chettiar and Co (M/s). Madurai v. Union of India


Table of Content
1. damage to goods was noted upon receipt. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding notice and premature filing. (Para 2 , 4 , 7)
3. court's reasoning on notice periods and liability. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 9)
4. importance of knowledge of damage for limitation. (Para 8)
5. final ruling on the case. (Para 10)

1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. His case was that a consignment of 145 bags of gramdhal was booked from Jakhodhere to Tuticorin under invoice No. 2 dated 10-7-1962, a copy of which was marked by the plaintiff himself as Ex. A - 1. The goods arrived at Tuticorin on 3-8-1962. According to P.W. 1, the goods were emitting a bad smell and the packages were considerably damaged. Such damage to the packages was noticed by P.W. 1 even on 3-8-1962. A request was made on 5-8-1962 to the railway authorities for the assessment of the damage to the packages and on such a requisition, the packages were examined and a certificate of damage was issued on 8-8-1962, and the petitioner secured open delivery of the consignment. On the basis of the certificate of damage, he made a claim on the Chief Commercial Manager under the provisions of the Indian Railways Act on 9-9-1962. The railw





















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