9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegation that it had despatched a consignment containing tobacco at Banaras for Gaya in Bihar for delivery to the firm Chaturbhai M. Patel Co. at Gaya. This consignment was booked under Invoice No. 107 Railway Receipt No. 89551 dated July 9, 1954. The plaintiff's allegation was that due to negligence of the Railway the identical goods despatched by the plaintiff did not reach the consignee at Gaya but the goods containing inferior type of tobacco reached there which caused serious loss to the plaintiff. The suit was filed after notice under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given. The plaintiff also claimed refund of the excise duty which was paid by the plaintiff. The suit was resisted by the defendant mainly on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nevertheless the High Court has discussed the suspicious circumstances relied upon by the defendant/appellant and has held that there was no conclusive or reliable evidence to prove the fraud or collusion as alleged by the defendant. One of the circumstances was that on June 9, 1954 a consignment of 191 bags of tobacco was booked by Mangal Bhai Prabhu Das the father of the plaintiff from Railway Station Vasad in Gujarat to Indian Zarada Factory, Banaras which was owned by the plaintiff. This consignment was taken delivery of by one Mohanlal an agent of the Indian Zarada Factory at Benaras and was re-warehoused in the bonded warehouse of the Factory at Benaras. On the same day the consignment of the plaintiff was also warehoused at the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, and if in spite of that there was delay in taking delivery, something could be said for the plaintiff. Lastly it was urged by Mr. Gobind Das for the appellant that the plaintiff who was the owner of the Indian Zarada Factory at Benaras and his father who was the owner of the firm in Gujarat appear to have entered into a conspiracy to defraud the defendant in view of their close relationship. The High Court has rightly pointed out that the plaintiff is a separated son and has nothing in common with his father, except the business in tobacco which is carried on at two different places. It has also been pointed out by the High Court that the father has married a second wife and that shows that there is no close affinity between the pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
