UNION OF INDIA versus AMAR SINGH

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 28-10-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

., 
-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
75 
· As the appellant cannot contend that his acquittal 
by Mr. Dutta Gupta was an acquittal by a court of 
competent. jurisdiction, he cannot plead s. 403· in 
support of this appeal. I appreciate that the view 
that I- have taken is hard on the appellant. But it 
does not seem to me that he was entirely without a 
remedy. I would have been prepared to give relief to 
the appellant if he had appealed from the judgment 
of Chm:ider J. and for that purpose I would have felt 
no difficulty in extending the time to appeal. As it is, 
I feel that the appeal must be dismissed. 
ORDER OF COURT. 
In accordance with the opinion of the majority ·the 
appeal is allowed; the order of the Calcutta High 
Court directing the complaint to be proceeded with-
in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is set 
aside, and the proceedings against the appellant are 
quashed. 
UNION OE' INDIA 
v. 
AMAR SINGH 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo and 
J. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
-
Contract-bnplied contract of bailment--Goods entrusted to 
Pakistan Railway for delivery in India-Pakistan Railway handing 
over goods to Indian Railway-Loss of goods-Liability of Indian 
Railway to consignor-Limitation for suit for compensation for loss 
.:_Indian Contract Act, r872 (IX of r872), ss. r48 and r94-lndian 
Limitation Act, r908 (IX of r908) Schedule I, arts. 30 and 3r. 
The respondent booked certain goods on September 4, 1947, 
with the N. W. Railway at Quetta in Pakistan to New Delhi. 
The wagon containing the goods was received at the Indian 
border station of Khem Karan on November l, 1947, duly sealed 
and labelled indicating its destination as New Delhi. It reached 
New Delhi on February 13, 1948, 
and was unloaded on 
February 20, lQ48, but no immediate information was sent to the 
respondent. On June 7, 1948, the respondent was asked by the 
E. P. Railway to take delivery of the goods lying at New Delhi 
station but when the respondent went there the goods were not 
traceable. Again, on July 24, 1948, .the respondent was asked to 
take delivery of the goods when only a small portion of the goods 
I959 
N. R. Ghose. 
.v. 
The State of 
West Bengal 
Sarkar]. 
I959 
October 28 
I959 
Union of India 
v. 
A1nar Siiigh 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS tl960(2)] 
were offered to him subject to the payment of Rs. r,067-8-0 as 
freight but the respondent refused to take delivery. On August 4, 
r949, the respondent filed a suit for Rs. l,62,123 with interest as 
compensation for non-delivery of goods against the Dominion o1 
India. The trial court found that the E. P. Railway was guilty 
of negligence in handling the goods and decreed the suit for 
Rs. 80,000, and on appeal the High Court confirmed the decree. 
The appellant contended that there \Vas no privity of contract 
between the respondent and the E. P. l~ailway and he could only 
have a claim against the N. W. Railway in Pakistan, and that the 
suit was barred by limitation. 
Held, that there was an implied contract of bailment between 
the respondent and the E. P. Railway and that Railway was 
liable for the loss. 
The conduct of the parties indicated that the 
respondent delivered the goods to the N. W. Railway with an 
authority to create the E. P. Railway as his immediate bailee 
from the point the wagon was put on its rails. 
The N. W. Rail-
way must be deemed to have had implied authority to appoint 
the E. P. Railway to act for the consignor during the journey of 
goods by the E. P. Railway and by force of s. 194 of the Indian 
Contract Act, the E. P. Railway became an agent of the consig-
nor. The N. W. Railway left the wagon with the E. P. Railway 
and the latter consciously took over the responsibility of the 
bailee, carried the wagon to New Delhi and offered to deliver the 
goods to the respondent. The respondent also accepted this 
relationship. 
From these facts, even if an agency could not be 
implied, a t~cit agreement between the t\VO Railways to carry 
the respondents goods to New Delhi could be implied resultirg in 
a contract of bailment between the E. P. Railway and respondent. 
J{ulu Ram Maigraj v. The Madras Railway Company, l.L.R. 
3 Mad. 240, G.I.P. Railway Co. v. Radhakisan Kushaldas, I.L.R. 
5 Born. 371, Bristol and Exeter Railway v. Collins, VII H.L.C. 194 
and De Busschc v. Alt, (1878) L.R. 8 Ch. D. 386, referred to. 
Held, further that the suit was not barred by limitation. 
Even if art. 30 of the Indian Limitation Act applied, as contended 
for by 

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