LAWS(ALL)-1949-9-23

DOMINION OF INDIA Vs. MODI SUGAR MILLS LTD

Decided On September 27, 1949
DOMINION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN PUNJAB RLY. Appellant
V/S
MODI SUGAR MILLS LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. It arises out of a suit instituted by Messrs. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. proprietors of the Modi Vanspati Manufacturing Co., Begama-bad, district Meerut, and firm Gheesa Ram Shiv Narain of Lucknow. The claim was for recovery of Rs. 135/- as compensation in respect of a few missing tins of vanaspati oil from two consignments sent from Begamabad on the North Western Railway to Lucknow on the East Indian Railway. The suit was filed against the Governor-Gene-ral-in-Council through the General Managers, North Western and East Indian Railways. The Governor-General and the North Western Railway are now represented respectively by the Dominion of India and by the Eastern Punjab Railway. The alteration of names is due to the new state of affairs which has come to prevail in consequence of the Indian Independence (Rights, Liabililies and Properties) Order of 1947 and the partition of the country between the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan.

(2.) The goods were despatched in two sealed wagons to the consignors. The railway receipts were endorsed in favour of the Lucknow firm. The plaintiffs alleged that at the time of delivery of the first consignment which was sent on 1-11-1942, there was a shortage of two tins and that there was likewise a shortage of four tins on delivery of the second consignment despatched from Begarnabad on 8-3-1943. The sum of Rs. 135/- comprises the price of six tins amounting to Rs. 127/- and interest at the rate of -/8/- per cent per month amounting to Rs. 8/-.

(3.) The two railway managements filed separate defences. We are not concerned with the defence set up by the East Indian Railway because the plaintiff's claim against it was dismissed and the decision in that behalf has not been challenged. For the same reasons it is unnecessary to make any further reference to the alleged loss of two tins out of the consignment of 1-9-1942.