UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER Vs. G. SWAMINATHA MUDALIAR SONS, THROUGH ITS MG. PARTNER G. MARIA JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed the suit against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway claiming damages in respect of loss of goods in transit. The goods were consigned at Madurai station to a place on the North Eastern Railway. The suit as would be noticed was laid against the Union of India, through its General Manager, North Eastern Railway. The question whether the suit was maintainable under Section 80 of the Railway's Act, was raised as an issue and it appears to have been contended by the North Eastern Railway that under Section 80 of the Railways Act, the suit was not properly laid. The Court below thought that since in the course of the correspondence the Southern Railway Administration had given some reply to the claimant, the respondent, apparently on behalf of the North Eastern railway, the suit was properly laid against the defendant.

(2.) IN this revision petition, the railway contends that since the Southern Railway is not a party to the suit, the Madurai Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that is the only question that requires to be examined.

(3.) TURNING to the Madras decision, a Bench of this Court held that the requirements of Section 77 would be adequately complied with if the notice under that section was sent to the General Manager of any one of the Government Railways concerned in the route over which through traffic passed. That is to say, even though the actual action might be against another railway which dealt with the goods notice to any one of the railway administrations covering the route might be sufficient compliance with Section 77. This decision to my mind does not appear to lay down the correct Jaw for in Jetmul Bhojraj v. D.H. Railway : [1963]2SCR832 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 22 of the Report: