Skip to content


In Re: Baroda and Central India Ry. Company Vs. Sukhadia Shankaralal Jagjiwandas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Bom96
AppellantIn Re: Baroda and Central India Ry. Company
RespondentSukhadia Shankaralal Jagjiwandas
Excerpt:
- section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not..........judge in the small cause court, suit no. 174 of 1922, at nadiad. the plaintiff had signed a risk note in the usual form, and he has not even proved that there had been a loss of one or more complete packages out of the consignment of 63 bags of sugar. that would be sufficient to dispose of the suit. but beyond that, even supposing one or more complete packages had been missing and not delivered still the plaintiff would have to show that the loss was due to the wilful neglect of the ry. co., or its servants.2. but the judge has completely misunderstood the nature of the case, as he said that the burden was on the defendant to show how the loss had arisen or could have arisen. the contract between the parties is contained in the risk note and section 76 of the indian railways act.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff sued to recover the price of goods short delivered by the defendant Company. The claim was decreed by the First Class Subordinate Judge in the Small Cause Court, Suit No. 174 of 1922, at Nadiad. The plaintiff had signed a risk note in the usual form, and he has not even proved that there had been a loss of one or more complete packages out of the consignment of 63 bags of sugar. That would be sufficient to dispose of the suit. But beyond that, even supposing one or more complete packages had been missing and not delivered still the plaintiff would have to show that the loss was due to the wilful neglect of the Ry. Co., or its servants.

2. But the Judge has completely misunderstood the nature of the case, as he said that the burden was on the defendant to show how the loss had arisen or could have arisen. The contract between the parties is contained in the Risk Note and Section 76 of the Indian Railways Act has no application.

3. The Rule, therefore, must be made absolute and the Plaintiff's suit must be dismissed with costs throughout.


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