UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAGAR TEXTILE MILLS PVT LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
UNION OF INDIA
SAGAR TEXTILE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
N.H.BHATT, J. -
(1.) THE contention which was vehemently pressed into service was that the notice under sec. 77 (b) of the Railways Act Ex. 38 on the record was not legal in so far as it was not given by the plaintiff itself. THE learned Judge however found that it was given by one Omprakash Sharma who the evidence on record showed was the plaintiffs agent as Bihar. It is no doubt true that Omprakash in that notice Ex. 38 did not specifically describe himself as the agent of the plaintiff but as rightly held by the learned trial Judge the details mentioned in the notice coupled with the evidence of the plaintiffs witness showed that he gave the notice as the agent of plaintiff. On reading the notice Ex. 38 the officers of the Railway Administration who were to be given notice or appraisal could have very well known that the notice was given by Omprakash for and on behalf of the present plaintiff the consignor and consignee. As a matter of fact delivery was taken by that very Omprakash of 20 saris in that bale received at Baidyanatthan Station in Bihar in the torn condition. As held by the learned trial Judge the contents of Ex. 38 were sufficient to give full details about the suit consignment. Analogical assistance could be had from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrut v. Sudesh A. I. R. 1970 S. C p. 5 where the Supreme Court held that even if the plaintiff did not describe himself as the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family it could be proved to be so. After-all a notice is to be interpreted in the context of parties and their environment and not abstractly. Application dismissed with no order as to costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.