JAINARAIN Vs. GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA REPRESENTING THE B AND A RLY
LAWS(CAL)-1949-1-8
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 18,1949

JAINARAIN Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA REPRESENTING THE B. AND A. RLY. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chakravartti, J. - (1.) The complaint in this rule is that the Cts. below have wrongly thrown out the pltf's. suit on the ground of limitation. The facts are extremely simple & are as follows:
(2.) On 6-5-1944, the petnr. handed over a bundle of cloth at the Burra bazar Booking Office of the B. & A. Rly. for carriage from Calcutta to a station called Jogbani. The handle was never delivered. Some correspondence followed in the course of which by a letter dated 13-3-1945, the Rly. informed the petnr. that one bundle belonging to his consignment was lying undelivered at the destination & that he must make arrangements for taking delivery within a certain time. The letter reads as follows: "Dear Sir, Sub : Calcutta Burra Bazar to Jogbani P. W. B. 963712 of 6.5.44. one bundle of cloth. With reference to your letter No. nil dated 2/8/44, I beg to inform you that one bundle of cloth belonging to the above consignment is lying undelivered at destination at your sole risk & responsibility & incurring wharfage daily. Will you please arrange to take delivery of the same at an early date ? If delivery is not taken or instructions received as to its disposal within 15 days from the date of this letter, the bundle will be disposed of tinder Sections 55 & 56, Railways Act IX [9] of 1890 to defray the charges due to the Rly." The letter was signed by someone who described himself as the Chief Commercial Manager.
(3.) The petnr. on receipt of this letter, went to examine the bundle but found that it did not belong to him at all. Thereafter, some further correspondence followed but nothing in particular resulted. Ultimately, on 22-8-1945, the present suit was brought by which the petnr. asked for a decree for Rs. 1465/7/- that according to him being the price of the contents of the bundle. In the body of his plaint be stated that the deft. had failed & neglected to deliver the consignment & that he was entitled to the sum claimed either as damages for breach of contract or as damages for wrongful conversion or as damages suffered by him on account of negligence & misconduct of the Rly.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.