Skip to content


Chhaganlal Himatlal Vs. the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Extraordinary application Nos. 279 and 280 of 1914
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Bom28(1); (1915)17BOMLR339
AppellantChhaganlal Himatlal
RespondentThe Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxv, rule 5-interpleader suit-railway company not an agent of consignor.;a railway company can file an interpleader suit against the consignor and a third party claiming adversely to the consignor, as the company is not an agent of the consignor within the meaning of order xxxv, rule 5 of the civil procedure code, 1908. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was..........as it was an agent of the consignors. no authority has been cited in support of the proposition that the railway company by accepting goods for carriage becomes an agent of the consignors within the meaning of this rule. we do not think that the provisions of the indian railways act and the indian contract act lend any colour to such a contention; on the contrary, they indicate that by accepting the goods the company enters into an independent contract with the consignors for the carriage of the goods.2. the result, therefore; is that the rules must be discharged with costs.
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. The only point urged in these applications by way of objection to the decision of the lower appellate Court is that, in virtue of Order XXXV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was not competent to the Railway Company to institute an interpleader suit as it was an agent of the consignors. No authority has been cited in support of the proposition that the Railway Company by accepting goods for carriage becomes an agent of the consignors within the meaning of this rule. We do not think that the provisions of the Indian Railways Act and the Indian Contract Act lend any colour to such a contention; on the contrary, they indicate that by accepting the goods the Company enters into an independent contract with the consignors for the carriage of the goods.

2. The result, therefore; is that the rules must be discharged with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //