LexBOOTAMAL versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) BOOTAMAL v, UNION OF INDIA (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Limitation-Suit ~ainst ca"ier for compensation for non-delivery-Starting point-If limitation start• from final refusal-Correspondence between parties, relevance of-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) Ari. 31., On August 5, 1947, the appellant booked two consigments by the N. W. Railway from Gujranwala, now in Pakistan, to Jagadhari. The consignments were not delivered and, on January 22, 1948, the appellant gave a notice to the railway under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming the value cf the goods by way of compensation. It was stated in the notice that the cause of action had arisen on August 21 and 30, 1947, when delivery was refused. On December I, 1948, the railway informed the appellant that the consignments were still lying at Gujranwala and could be despatched on the appellant obtaining the necessary permits from the Pakistan authorities. On December 13, 1949, the appellant brought a suit for compensation for non-delivery of the goods. The respondent contended that the suit was beyond time as it was not filed within one year from the time "when the goods ought to be delivered" as prescribed by art. 31 of the Llmitation Act. Held, that the suit was barred by time. The words "when the goods ought to be delivered" in art. 31 bad to be given their strict grammatical meaning and equitable . consi- derations were out of place. Under art. 3~ limitation started on the expiry of the time fixed between the parties for delivery of the goods and in the absence of any such agreement the limitation started after reasonable time had elapoed on the expiry of which the delivery ought to have been made. The reasonable time wa• to be'determincd according to the circum- stances of each case. The view taken by some High Courts that time 1:-egan to run from the date when the railway finally refused to deliver was not correct ; where the Jegialaturc intended that time should run from the date of refusal it had used appropriate words in that connection. The starting point of limitation could not generally be affected by the conduct of the parties or by the corresponclance between them, unless it co.ntained an acknowledgment of liability by the carrier or showed something affecting the reasonable time In the present case delivery ought to have been made within five or six months, as is also indicated by the s, 80 notice iPvcn 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 71 by the appellant and the suit was filed more than a year after tha expiry of that time. Dominion o.f India v. Firm Aminchand Bholanath (F. B.) decided by Punjab High Court on May 2, 1956, approved. Jugal Kishore v. The Great Indian Peninsular Railway ( 1923) I. L. R. 45 All. 43 ; Bengal and North Western Railway Company v. Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Bahadur, (1933) I. L. R. 12 Pat. 67, 77 ; .Tai Narain v. The Governor-Gentral of India, A. I. R. (1951) Cal. 462; and Governor-General in Oounr.il v. S. G. Ahmed, A. I. R. (1952) Nag. 77, disapproved. Nagendranath v. Sure.Yh, A. I. R. (1932) P. C. 165 and Genr.ral Accident Fire and Life J ssurance Uorporation Limited v • .Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, A. I. R. (1941) P. C. 6, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1960. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 19, 1958, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in R: F. A. No. 299 of 1951. K. L. Gosain, R ... Ganapathy lyer and G. Gopal,a- kri8lman, for the appellant. B. Sen and P. D. Menon, for the respondent. · 1962. March 27. The Judgment of the Court waH delivered by WANCHOO, J:-This appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court raises a question as to the interpretation of Art. 31 of the Limitation Act. The appellant had brought a suit. in forma pauperis for recovery of a sum of ovQr Rs. 24,000/ · from the Union of India in connection with non- delivery of certain goods booked W:it.Q the railway. The appellant was trading in Gujrah wa.la,' which -is now in Pakistan, under the name and\style of G. M. Bootamal and Company and also un~er the name and style of Gopal Metal Ro1ling Mills anti Company he being the sole proprietor of both. On August 5~ 194-71 just before-the partition the appel1ant han~ed ove~ two consignments to t,h(1 North \Vestem 1962 Bootamat v. Uni·m nf India anchoo J. Bootamal y, UniQn af lni io wancho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.