JAGANNATH CHETRAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted this suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,308.48 p. or in the alternative an enquiry as to damages suffered by the plaintiff and a decree for the sum found due on such enquiry.

(2.) The plaintiff alleges that on January 28, 1963 Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Private Ltd. delivered to the defendants' Western Railway Administration at Surat four cases of cotton piece goods, covered by invoice No. 94 to be safely and securely carried by Railway to Shalimar, a Railway station within the administration of South Eastern Railway and there to be delivered to the plaintiff as the consignee of the said goods. The further allegations are that the defendant duly issued a railway receipt bearing No. 53892 dated January 28, 1963 in respect thereof. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it is alleged that the railway receipt and the invoice were received by the plaintiff on or about February 15, 1963 from the Bank of Baroda upon payment of the value of the goods to the said bank at its branch at No. 172, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta and that by such payment the plaintiff became the owner of four cases of cotton piece goods covered by the railway receipt and the said invoice. It is also alleged that the Dank endorsed the railway receipt in favour of the plaintiff at its branch at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed and neglected to deliver the goods to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims the value of the said goods and loss of profit calculated at 10% and further demurrage charges as alleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint. The further claim is interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as alleged in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint.

(3.) The defendant is described in the cause title as Union of India carrying on business of, inter alia, the Eastern Railway Administration having its headquarters at No. 1 Fairlie Place at Calcutta within the aforesaid jurisdiction. The written statement is filed on behalf of Union of India representing the Eastern Railway Administration as the defendant. The defence is that Eastern Railway Administration of the Union of India representing the same was in no way concerned with the consignment in suit. The further defence is that Eastern Railway Administration has its headquarters at 17 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta and not at No. 1 Fairlie Place. It is also contended in the written statement that the Eastern Railway Administration did not and could not have any concern in the consignment and as such the Union of India representing the Eastern Railway has no liability. The further defence will appear from the issues framed at the trial. The following issues were framed at the trial :