Skip to content


Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ramesh Cotton Mills Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1978SC1491; (1978)4SCC46; 1978(10)LC450(SC)
AppellantUnion of India (Uoi)
RespondentRamesh Cotton Mills Ltd.
DispositionAppeal Dismissed
Excerpt:
.....us to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, the evidence and the materials produced by the parties do show that there was negligence on the part of the railway and the high court was fully justified in decreeing the suit......1978(?) decreeing the plaintiff's suit for damages to the extent of rs. 38,044.25. the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal, the high court passed a decree as indicated above. we have gone through the judgment of the high court and we find that in spite of the best efforts of the counsel for the appellant to persuade us to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, the evidence and the materials produced by the parties do show that there was negligence on the part of the railway and the high court was fully justified in decreeing the suit. one of the main points which impressed the high court, was that the railway has not been able to explain the delay of about six hours in extinguishing the fire. mr. bhatt, counsel for the appellant tried.....
Judgment:

Fazal Ali, J.

1. This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment of the High Court dated 11th October, 1978(?) decreeing the plaintiff's suit for damages to the extent of Rs. 38,044.25. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal, the High Court passed a decree as indicated above. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and we find that in spite of the best efforts of the Counsel for the appellant to persuade us to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, the evidence and the materials produced by the parties do show that there was negligence on the part of the Railway and the High Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit. One of the main points which impressed the High Court, was that the Railway has not been able to explain the delay of about six hours in extinguishing the fire. Mr. Bhatt, counsel for the appellant tried to give an oral explanation, which is not at all borne out by the materials on the record. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any error in the judgment of the High Court.

2. The appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.


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