Skip to content


M. Siddalingappa Vs. T. Nataraj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Petition No. 1196 of 1967
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Kant154; AIR1970Mys154; ILR1969KAR776
ActsIndian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 23 and 151
AppellantM. Siddalingappa
RespondentT. Nataraj
Appellant AdvocateBalarathnam, Adv. for ;V.S. Mohanrangam, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateN. Keshava Murthy, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....as in the present case, in a place where he or she is residing outside goa. the courts, in the rest of india, would have no jurisdiction to entertain suit (petition) under the provisions of the portuguese family law pertaining to divorce. the laws relating to succession and marriage might not be the same all over the country and different areas in the state might have different laws in respect of those matters. though the respondent is now living at belgaum, on the premise that if there was a possibility of reconciliation, her domicile would be that of the petitioner at goa, it can safely be said that a suit by the respondent would lie in the state of goa in terms of article 5 before the court of domicile. in view of this, it can be said that the portuguese family law would be the court..........undoubtedly, a bailee in respect of the sarees given to him and there is a minimum duty of care imposed upon all bailees under section 151 of the contract act which they cannot contract themselves out of it is not subject to any contract to the contrary between the parties. under that section, in all cases of bailment, the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudencewould in similar circumstances take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. once that minimum duty is imposed upon the bailee by the law, a breach of that duty undoubtedly clothes the party affected with the right to recover damages commensurate with the consequences.3. the revision petition, therefore, has to be and is hereby dismissed.4......
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner who is a Dry Cleaner was sued by the respondent for damages in respect of damage caused to two silk sarees entrusted for dry cleaning. The suit has been decreed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.

2. The only point of law raised is that the lower Court was wrong in not giving effect to the following clause of the contract printed on the back of the receipt given by the petitioner on the ground that it is opposed to public policy;

'All articles for cleaning and dyeing are accepted on conditions that the company shall incur no liability in respect of any damage which may occur and for delay or in the event of loss for which the company may accept the liabilitywhich shall in no case exceed eight times the cleaning charges.'

The question whether any public policy is involved or not does not in my opinion, arise. The petitioner is, undoubtedly, a bailee in respect of the sarees given to him and there is a minimum duty of care Imposed upon all bailees under Section 151 of the Contract Act which they cannot contract themselves out of it is not subject to any contract to the contrary between the parties. Under that section, in all cases of bailment, the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudencewould in similar circumstances take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. Once that minimum duty is imposed upon the bailee by the law, a breach of that duty undoubtedly clothes the party affected with the right to recover damages commensurate with the consequences.

3. The revision petition, therefore, has to be and is hereby dismissed.

4. Petition dismissed.


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