9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (1) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiff, by the plaintiff's agent at Kurda. The goods were stocked in the station godown at Kudra, pending issue of railway receipt. On the 13th of September, 1956, the Railway Staff at Kudra gave out that 39 bags of wheat were stolen from the godown. A note was Issued to that effect, and it was also mentioned therein that some quantities of wheat had been pilfered from five bags. Thereafter, the plaintiff's agent supplied 44 bags of wheat to the Railway Staff, and in due course, a railway receipt bearing No. 823279 was issued on the 13th of September, 1956. In due course, this wheat was despatched. On the 7th of August, 1956, 230 bags of linseed had also been entrusted to the station staff at Kudra, along with a forwarding note. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was a contract of carriage of goods between the plaintiff and the defendant, and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to file this suit in the Court of the First Munsif at Patna, because the contract was to be performed within the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. This argument is based on the fact that the goods despatched were to be delivered to the plaintiff at Patna Ghat, within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit was instituted. Reference is made by learned counsel to Section 72 of the Indian Railways Act, and reliance is placed on the case of Governor-General of India in-Council v. Jubilee Mills Ltd., reported in AIR 1953 Bom 46. According to learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods, that were then lying in the railway godown at Kudra, to some place not within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the present suit was filed, and the goods were lost in transit, could the plaintiff, then, sue the Railway administration for the loss, instituting the suit in a Court within whose jurisdiction delivery was to be given under the railway receipt, and, institute another suit at Patna, for the wheat lost and stolen at Kudra between the 12th and 13th September, 1956, only because on the 12th September it had in mind that it would send the wheat to Patna Ghat? The answer must be that a suit in a Court, within whose jurisdiction Patna Ghat lies, could not have been instituted, only because the plaintiff had in mind on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
