NIRANJANLALL AGARWALLA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 07-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NIRANJANLALL AGARWALLA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
March 7, 1968 
B 
[J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Indian Rai11rays Act (9 o/ 1890), ss. 3(6), 77 and 14Q (before a111e1i~l-
111t•111 by Act 39 of 1961)-StatC-olvned Railway-Service of s. 77 notice 
<'111 Cilil'f Co1111nercial Managt•r (Claiin.v aud Refunds)-!/ sufficient co111-
p/iauce. 
Indian Li111italio11 Act (9 of l 908), s. 14-Appliccbility. 
The appellant booke<l goods at Scaldah, which is on the border of the 
1crritoria1 limits of the Original Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, 
to be tr:tnsported by the Bengal and Assam Railway, owned by the State 
and having its head office at Calcutta. There was ·short de1ivcry of the 
goo<ls and ti1c n1ihvay authorities issued the ncccssarv c..:rt:fk:atcs uf ~hort­
agc. 
The appellant \Vrote a letter to the Chief 
Commercial 
~tanager 
(Clain1s and Rcfun<ls) of the R.aihvay within six months from th.? <late 
of delivery of goods fOr carriage as required by s. 77 of the Act before 
ils amendment by Act 39 of 1961, claiming the value of the goods short 
deliv-cred. 
Failing to get any rcdrcs.~. lie filed a suit on the Original Side 
of the High Court at Cnlcutta in 1946. within the period of limitation. 
In 1954. the sui1 \Vas disn1issed on the ground that the Court had no 
iu'risdiction to try the suit. lbcn the appellant filed a second suit in the 
Subordinate Judge's Court havinl! jurisdiction, and prayed for exclusion 
of the time tnkcn between the i.latcs of institution and dismissal of th"c 
earlier suit. under s. J 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908. 
The trial Court dismissed the suit. 
The High Court in appeal, held 
against the appellant on the ground that the appc11ant's letter addre~sed 
to the Chief Commercial Man:.tgcr (Claims and Refunds) could not 
he 
t'ri:atcd as th-.:: notice required under s. 77 of the Railways Act, 1890. as 
that officer \vas not the authority to receive the notice -un<lcr the si:ction. 
ln appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (1) The rcquircn1ent of compliance \\-'ith the tcrn1s of s. 77 
should be liberally construed as the object of the notice ,vas only to en-
able the railway n<lministration to n1ak~ an enquiry and investigate into 
lhc cause of the loss of the goods consigned to it. S:ction 140, bcfor\! its 
.imendment by Act 39 of 1961 provided that a notice required to 
he 
served on a State-owned Raily.·ay Adn1inistration may he served on the 
Mannger. 
The Bc11gal and Assam Railway Administration did not have 
an authority known as the Mnnagcr. It hall a General M'anagcr in •JVer 
all charge hut its Chief Commercial ~Ianagcr (Claims and Kefunds) \l.1as 
a high ranking officer specially engaged in enquiring into claims hY con-
signors and consignees against the Rnilway administration . .He was there-
fore an officer con1pctcnt to deal \\•ith such claims and the requirements 
of s. 77 arc satisfied hy serving a notice on him: and it docs not behove 
the S!nte to contest a good claim on unsubstantial technical picas. [418 D-
E; 419 C-D, F·H; 421 DJ 
Gol'ernor-.General i11 Council v . .lf11satldi Lal. [_1961] 3 S.C.R. 647, 
651 an<l Je11111tl/ Bhojraj v. The Darjt•c/ing Hi111ala~'<111 Railn·ay Co. LttT. 
11963] 2 S.C.R. 83~. 845, followed. 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968) 3 S.C.R. 
Governor-General in Co1111cil v. G .. S. Mills Ltd, 1.L.R. 28 Pat. 178 
A 
(F.B.) approved, 
(2) On the facts, tho appellant was entitled to the benefit of s. 14 
of the Limitation Act, because, he was prosecuting the earlier suit v.·ith 
due diligence and the mistake in choosing the Original Side of tl>o High 
Court for filing the first suit was made bona fide. [421 Al 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 577 of 
B· 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated June 9, 1961 of 
the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 133 
of 1956. 
B. C. Misra and S. S. Shukla for the appellant. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad, K. L. Hathi and R. N. Sachthey, for 
the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. This is an appeal by certificate under Art. 133(l)(c) 
c 
0f the Constitution of India from a judgment and decree of the 
High Court of Calcutta confirming a decree of dismissal of the 
I> 
suit of the appellant herein instituted in the court of the Subordi-
nate Judge, 8th Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas, West 
Bengal. 
The only two points .canvassed in the appeal to this Court are: 
(I) whether notices under section 77 of the Indian

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.