Firm Laxmi Dutt Roopchand vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
- SCC(1975) 1 SCC 341
- AIRAIR 1975 SC 760
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where goods consigned for carriage by railway are seized by the Railway Police during transit in connection with a criminal investigation, and subsequently returned to the consignor after criminal proceedings, the railway administration incurs no liability for non-delivery, as it has committed no breach of duty in the carriage of goods and the consignee or party claiming an interest has an adequate remedy against the person who obtained possession of the goods.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. This appeal by special leave turns on the question as to whether the appellant can claim damages against the Union in respect of a consignment delivered for carriage by the Railway Administration.
2. The respondent Jhanak Lal on 11 January, 1956 consigned 35 bags of brass for carriage by Railway from Sindi Railway Station to Mirzapur. The railway receipt was consigned to self. The Railway Police on 15 January, 1956 seized the goods at Sindi Railway Station.
3. Jhanak Lal was prosecuted in respect of the goods for an offence under Section 379/411, Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted on 27 June, 1957. The Magistrate mentioned in the judgment that the brass which had been seized be returned to Jhanak Lal. It may be stated here that the Criminal Court made the aforesaid order because Jhanak Lal being the consignor and consignee was prima facie entitled to possession.
4. Jhanak Lal received the goods back from the Police in whose custody they were.
5. The appellant in a letter dated 26 July, 1956 asked the Railways to pay Rs. 7098/- as the price for non-delivery of 35 bags of brass. The Railway Administration informed the appellant on 16 January, 1957 that the consignment had been seized by the Railway police in a theft case. The appellant was asked to, approach the Court for release of the consignment. The appellant did not take any steps in the criminal Court. It is to be noticed that the appellant never claimed to be the indorsee of the Railway Receipt.
6. The appellant brought a suit on 27 August, 1958 against the Union and Jhanak Lal. The appellant claimed to be indorsee of the Railway Receipt. The Courts found that there was no negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in respect of carriage of goods.
7. The appellant obtained a decree against Jhanak Lal. The decree represents the value of the goods. The Railway Administration committed no breach of duty in respect of carriage. The appellant obtained a remedy against Jhanak Lal, who obtained the goods.
8. The appeal is dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free