- (1.) SLP(C)No.7962 of 2006 We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
(2.) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel. The High Court while adjudicating upon the matter recorded as under : "The word 'endorsee' has been defined in Section 2 of the Act, 1989, according to which endorsee means the person in whose favour an endorsement is made, and in case of successive endorsements, the person in whose favour the last endorsement is made. Thus, on the factual aspect, it is apparently clear that out of ten cases mentioned above in the matter of two, the endorsements were made by the appellant in favour of M/s. East India Steels, Lucknow while M/s.East India Steels, Lucknow was consignee in the remaining cases. On behalf of M/s East India Steels, Lucknow, the receipts were further endorsed in the name of Sunil Kumar and Dilip Kumar and, therefore, they were the last endorsee and in my opinion, in view of Section 74 of the Act, 1989 the right and title over the goods covered by the consignment passed on to the above last endorsee. The two authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the present case. There was no identical provision in Section 74 in Railways Act, 1890 and, therefore, the judgments cited on behalf of the appellant are not attracted to the facts of the case and the appellant cannot derive any benefit therefrom. The Railway Claims Tribunal rightly held that the appellant did not have little (sic) over the property and thus, it did not have right to sue for claim." We are satisfied, that the aforesaid determination is fully justified on a collective reading of Sections 74, 2(12) and 2(13) of the Railways Act, 1989. For the reasons recorded, we find no merit in the instant petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. SLP(C) No. 8052 of 2006
(3.) The controversy in the instant petition is identical to the one adjudicated upon, and decided by this Court on 17.01.2017, in SLP(C)No.7962 of 2006 (Raymond Cement Works v. Union of India).;