Shiv Nath Rai Ram Dhari and Ors. Vs The Union of India (Uoi) On 10 February, 1965

Shiv Nath Rai Ram Dhari And Ors.
vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 10 February, 1965
Supreme Court of India

Shiv Nath Rai Ram Dhari And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 10 February, 1965
Equivalent citations: AIR 1965 SC 1666, (1965) 0 PLR 231
Author: J Mudholkar
Bench: A Sarkar, K Wanchoo, J Mudholkar
JUDGMENT J.R. Mudholkar, J.
1. The common question which arises in this group of appeals from 9 judgments of the High Court of
Punjab which were disposed of along with 5 other appeals by a common judgment is whether the
Union of India is liable to the consignees of different commodities or goods which were consigned to
them by rail from various places in the country on account of their non-delivery. The appellants'
consignments were admittedly being carried by a goods train, No. 35 down, assembled at Agra on or
about August 28, 1949, and stabled at Asaoti, a railway station about half way between Mathura and
Delhi.
2. There is no dispute that the appellants' consignments were to be delivered at Delhi and that they
were in fact not delivered. According to the respondent these consignments were looted from the
stabled train between the 4th and 11th September, 1947. Further according to it there being
congestion in the yard at Agra the wagons in which these goods were being carried, along with other
wagons carrying goods, were formed into a separate goods train at Agra which was taken to Asaoti
and stabled there at the siding. In the normal course this train would have gone ahead up to Delhi
but as there also the yards were heavily congested, not only this goods train but several other goods
trains were stabled at different wayside stations between Agra and Delhi. This, it was said, was due
to the fact that owing to communal disturbances raging in this part of the country at that time, the
section of the railway between Agra and Delhi was being operated under conditions of the utmost
difficulty and, therefore, the normal movement of trains was impeded.
3. The Court of first instance decreed all these suits upon the ground that the respondent had not
established that the goods had been looted by lawless elements and so it was liable to make good the
value of the consignments which were not delivered by the railway administration to the respective
appellants. In appeal the High Court of Punjab found, on the other hand, that the defence had been
fully established and dismissed the claims.
4. We are here concerned with the Indian Railways Act, 1890 as it stood before its amendments first
by Act 56 of 1949 and then by Act 89 of 1961. The measure of the responsibility of the railway
administration as a carrier of animals and goods is set out in Section 72. Subsection (1) of that
section provides that subject to the other provisions of the Act the responsibility of a railway
administration for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to the
administration to be carried by rail shall be that of a bailee under Sections 151, 152 and 161 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872. Sub-section (2) provides that the railway administration could, by
entering into a special contact in a form approved by the Governor General, limit its liability.
Sub-section (3) provides that nothing in the common law of England or the Carriers Act, 1865,
regarding the responsibility of common carriers with respect to the carriage of animals or goods,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1201722/
shall affect the responsibility of a railway-administration as defined in that section. In pursuance of

the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 72 certain types of risk notes to be executed by a
consignor which had been duly approved by the Governor General, were in vogue. One such risk
note is in form B. This risk note is to be executed by the consignor who wants his consignment to be
carried by the railway administration at a specially reduced rate instead of at the ordinary tariff rate
chargeable for such a consignment. The consignments with which we are concerned in these appeals
had been despatched under risk notes in this form. It would, therefore, be useful to reproduce the
relevant portion of risk note, form "B".
"I/We, the undersigned, do in consideration of such lower charge, agree and undertake to hold the
said Railway Administration harmless and free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction or
deterioration of or damage to. the said consignment from any cause whatever, except upon proof
that such loss, destruction, deterioration or damage arose from the misconduct on the part of the
Railway Administration or its servants; provided that in the following cases:-(a) Non-delivery of the whole of the said consignment or of the whole of one or more packages
forming part of the said consignment packed in accordance with the instructions laid down in the
Tariff or where there are no such instructions, protected otherwise than by paper or other packing,
readily removable by hand and fully addressed, where such non-delivery is not due to accidents to
trains or fire:
(b) Pilferage from a package or packages forming part of the said consignment properly packed as in
(a) when such pilferage is pointed out to the servants of the Railway Administration on or before
delivery;
the Railway Administration shall be bound to disclose to the consignor how the consignment was
dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession or control and, if necessary, to give evidence
thereof the consignor is called upon to prove misconduct, but if misconduct on the part of the
Railway Administration or its servants cannot be fairly inferred from such evidence the burden of
proving such misconduct shall lie upon the consignor."
While it is common ground that the railway administration in whose favour risk note B has been
executed will be responsible for any loss, destination, deterioration of or damage to the consignment
only upon proof that such loss, destruction, deterioration or damage arose from misconduct of the
railway administration or its servants, the parties were not agreed as to the meaning to be given to
the word "misconduct". According to the appellants, "misconduct" means "bad management" or
"improper conduct" and that this would include not only a positive act on the part of the railway
administration or its servants but also an omission by any of them to do what was right or proper.
On behalf of the Union of India it is contended that an omission to do anything or to take proper
care falls outside the purview of misconduct and that the railway administration is liable for
non-delivery only if it is established that the administration or any of its servants had committed a
positive act which was wrong or improper. There is a sharp conflict of opinion upon the meaning to
be given to the word "misconduct" amongst the various High Courts as was illustrated by the
numerous decisions cited at the bar. Three views which have been taken are set out in the judgment
of Venkataramana Rao, J., in N. M. Roshan Umar Karim and Co. v. M. and S. M. Rly. Co. Ltd., ILR
59 Mad 789: (AIR 1936 Mad 508), and it will suffice for the purposes of this case to refer to that
judgment only. One view is that taken by Guha, J. in M. and S. M. Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Sunderjee Kalidas,
ILR 60 Cal 996 at p. 1000. There the learned Judge has said:
"It may be taken to be well settled now, that 'misconduct' is not necessarily established by proving
even culpable negligence. Misconduct is something opposed to accident or negligence. It is the
intentional doing of something which the doer knows to be wrong, or which he does recklessly, not
caring what the result may be."
A similar view has been taken in some other cases. The second view is that expressed in Bengal
Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Moolji Sicka and Co., ILR 58 Cal 585: and certain other cases. There
Suhrawardy, J. has observed at p. 593 (of ILR Cal), as follows:
"Misconduct is distinguished from accident and is not far from negligence not only gross and
culpable negligence and involves that a person misconducts himself when it is wrong conduct on his
part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail or omit to do (as the case may be), a particular
thing or to persist in the act, failure or omission or acts with carelessness. . . . the word 'misconduct'
as used in the new risk note B is wide enough to include wrongful commission and omission,
intentional or unintentional -- any act which it wrongfully did or which it wrongfully neglected to do,
or, to put it in another way, did what it should not have done or did not do what it should have
done......I am not inclined to accept the view that misconduct only refers to acts of gross or culpable
negligence and the term does not ordinarily cover acts of mere negligence. In my judgment the word
'misconduct' denotes any unbusinesslike conduct and includes negligence or want of proper care
which a bailee is to take under Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act. The immunity which the risk
note brings to the railway company is by shifting the burden of proof."
5. It is on these decisions that strong reliance is placed on behalf of the appellants. The third view is
represented in the judgments of Faweett, Ag. C. j. in M. and S. M. Rly. v. Jumakhram, AIR 1928
Bom 504, and Kemp, Ag. C. J. in B. B. and C. I. Rly. v. Rajnagar Spinning Co. Ltd. AIR 1930 Bom
129. In the former it was observed:
"In any case, the expression used in the present risk-note is 'misconduct' which does not ordinarily
cover acts of negligence."
In the latter it was observed:
"I am not prepared to accept the test of the meaning of the word 'misconduct' as what a reasonable
man would have done under the circumstances. I think the word suggests that a railway servant had
been guilty of doing something which was inconsistent with the conduct expected of him by the
rules of the company." The view taken in the latter case, therefore, suggests that an omission to
abide by a rule of the railway administration would be comprised within the expression
'misconduct'.
6. If the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is accepted the result would be that even
where a risk note in form B has been executed by the consignor for obtaining the benefit of specially
reduced rates, the railway administration would still continue to be liable under Section 151 of the
Contract Act as a bailee for loss, destruction or damage to the consignment covered by such a note.
Sub-section (2) of Section 72, however, specifically provides for the limitation of this very liability. It
is, therefore, open to grave doubt whether even after the execution of a risk note such as the one in
Form B which was clearly intended to limit the liability of a railway administration under Section
151, of the Indian Contact Act it would still continue to exist and that the only benefit accruing to the
administration would be the shifting of the burden of proof on the consignees. On the other hand it
is also a matter for consideration whether the breach by the servants of a railway administration of
rules or instructions which they were expected to obey would be within the expression "misconduct"
because the breach is not of any duty owed either by the administration or by its servants to the
consignor. It will, however, not serve any useful purpose for us to resolve the conflict because under
the amended provision, i.e., Sections 73 and 74 a railway administration shall not be relieved of its
responsibility for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery unless the
administration further proves that it has used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of the
animals or goods unless they were carried at the owner's risk. Further there is no provision in the
Act as amended for the execution of a risk note like the one in form B. We would, therefore, proceed
in this case on the assumption that despite the execution of the risk note the railway administration
was bound to take as much care of the consignments as it would have of its own goods.
7. Even so, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we must ascertain the amount of care which it would
have been possible for the railway administration to take in the particular circumstances which
obtained in August-September, 1947, in this part of the country. What was happening in this part of
the country during this period is a matter of which we can take judicial notice. Apart from that, that
has been deposed to by witnesses including Evans who was then the Deputy Controller of Train
Movements at Agra. The High Court, upon a consideration of the evidence has summarised the state
of affairs at Asaoti between the 4th and 14th of September as follows:
"The history of the attacks on the train while it was lying stabled at Asaoti is contained in the
evidence of the Assistant Station Master, D. W. 5, the Station Master Ganga Saran Gupta, D. W. 10,
and in the station diary for the relevant period which contains entries by both of them. According to
this evidence the first attempt to loot the train was made by few persons on the night of the 1th of
September, but the Station Master managed to scare them away. Some wagons, the numbers of
which are given in the entry in the station diary of the 4th of September which were found to have
been tampered with were resealed. Another attack by a small party was made on the night of the 6th
of September when a wagon containing oil-tins was broken and some of its contents removed, but
again the robbers were driven away, an entry being made by the Assistant Station Master-in the
diary of the 7th of September regarding this attack. The same wagon is alleged to have been attacked
again on the night of the 8th of September and again a note was made regarding this in the diary on
the 9th of September.
The most serious attack began on the night of the 11th of September by a much larger mob and this
attack continued with systematic looting of the wagons right up to the 14th of September except for
a few occasions during those days in which the assistance of military escorts was obtained for a short
time from passing trains and the looters were driven off for a short period. It seems, however, that
they invariably returned as soon as the soldiers had gone away in the trains which they were
escorting. In the meantime the Assistant Station Master, Mohan Lai Mathur, quite frankly ran away
on the 12th of September, as he was apparently afraid for his life. Actually it seems that he took
advantage of a passing train and went away in it." What the High Court has said is based upon
evidence and cannot be permitted to be questioned in these appeals.
8. It has also been found by the High Court, relying upon the evidence of Evans that there was
congestion in the yard at Agra because the conditions then prevailing made normal running of trains
impossible. It is also clear from his evidence that there was congestion in the yards at Delhi. It is
true that Evans had no personal knowledge of the position in Delhi in the sense that he did not visit
Delhi during the relevant period. But it was his duty as Deputy Controller of Movements to be
always in touch with that station, amongst others, so as to facilitate his work. Information is
conveyed between two stations by telephone or by telegrams and it is the peculiar duty of the
Controller of Movements to seek information regarding the position in the yards of various stations
to which he has to move the trains. Whether the information received by him was correct or not is
irrelevant; it is enough that on that information he so directed the movement of the trains that a
congestion in fact occurred at Agra and of this he had personal knowledge. He has also said that the
position at Mathura was similar, besides the fact that according to his information communal
disturbances were raging there. The Administration, therefore, had to find some places at which it
could stable wagons which could not be kept at Agra and for which there was no special priority, as
for instance, wagons not containing perishable goods or dangerous or inflammable goods or goods
such as food which were urgently required for the benefit of the community at large. It is an
admitted fact that no special watch and ward arrangements, in the sense of providing a separate
staff for the purpose of guarding stationary trains, obtained at wayside stations. If, there-fore, the
administration stabled a train containing goods of the kind which the wagons forming N. 35 down
contained at Asaoti, it cannot be said to have acted in a reckless or even negligent manner. Even if
the goods had belonged to the administration itself, it would, in the circum-stances, have been
forced to stable the train at Asaoti or other similar wayside station even though there might have
been no watch and ward there. It would appear that where no special watch and ward establishment
exists it is the duty of the normal station staff to depute some of their men for guarding a stabled
train. If the administration or the station staff thought that this was sufficient to protect the wagons
which, it may be mentioned, were properly rivetted, locked and sealed, it cannot be said to have
acted even in a negligent manner, much less in a reckless manner. There is nothing to indicate that
there were riots at Asaoti and indeed it is the appellants' case that there were no disturbances at
Asaoti itself. If this is so, then the authorities at Jhansi under whom the Deputy Controller at Agra
was working and the Deputy Controller himself who allowed the train to proceed to Asaoti for being
stabled there could not be charged with negligence.
9. It was, however, said that under a certain rule a special watch and ward staff had to be provided to
guard trains which had been stabled at wayside stations. As a sample one of the learned counsel for
the appellants has furnished us with extracts from the North Western Railway Commercial Manual.
These appear to be instructions and are as follows:
"885. Watch and Ward.--The watch and ward staff in the goods sheds must be adequate and
reliable.
886. Accessibility into goods shed.--If possible, the goods shed during the night must not be
accessible to any one but to inspecting staff and watch and ward staff.
888. Loaded wagons and yards at night time--Such wagons standing for the night in a yard must not
be left standing in isolated sidings. The patrol staff must be adequate and alert and see that the
wagons are properly secured and seals are correct each time the patrol staff passes the wagon. Any
unauthorized person found moving in the yard must be challenged and if unable to give a
satisfactory account of himself he should be arrested and made over to the police.
900. Watch and ward at stations at which watchmen are not provided.--Watchmen are only posted
at such roadside stations as may be considered necessary. At all other roadside stations the duties of
watch and ward must be performed by the menial staff, and Station Masters must arrange the
duties."
10. The first three of these instructions are obviously not applicable to wayside stations.But the last
one may apply to them. Normally, therefore, according to the last instruction, if applicable, watch
and ward duties at Asaoti had to be performed only by the menial staff. We have it, however, in the
evidence of the Station Master, Asaoti, that after an attempt was made to break into one of the
wagons on September 1, 1947 he had telegraphically made a request to the appropriate authorities
for sending a complement of watch and ward men to Asaoti, But according to him he received no
reply. He has further said that after the repetition of an attempt on the next day as well as after some
wagons had been broken open he made frantic efforts for the deputation of watch and ward staff to
Asaoti but without success. According to him under a certain rule the authorities were required to
depute special watch and ward staff to those wayside stations at which there was no special
arrangement for watch and ward to guard trains stabled there. Apart from the fact that no rule or
even instruction was cited at the bar the statement of the Station Master that he had appealed for
deputation of watch and ward staff is not mentioned in the diary maintained by him and by the
Assistant Station Master. Assuming that he did make efforts, as deposed to by him, for deputation of
watch and ward staff, it seems to us that it could not, reasonably have been possible for the
authorities either at Agra or at Jhansi, even if they got his telegram, in view of the disturbed
conditions and the resulting confusion which obtained at that time to spare any man for being sent
to wayside stations. It was far more important for them to utilise all the available manpower for
performing watch and ward duties at important stations where the yards were full of a large number
of wagons containing commercial and other valuable consignments. In times of unusual stress and
pressure a person whose property lying at a large number of places is exposed to looting or pilfering
at the hands of lawless elements, professional wagon breakers and the like, that person would
naturally concentrate more on guarding those places at which the danger is greater or the total value
of the goods is greater than those where it is less. It is in this broad aspect that we must consider the
duty of care which rested on the railway administration at the relevant time. Looking at it that way it
would not be reasonable to conclude that the railway administration or its staff were guilty of
negligence. It could perhaps be said that the administration and the staff at Asaoti with the
knowledge of what took place at Asaoti on the 4th September did nothing. But even so, it would not
be right to say that they were guilty of negligence. Indeed, there was nothing which the
administration itself could do and so far as the staff at Asaoti was concerned, bearing in mind the
fact that a large number of persons had taken part in breaking open the wagons and looting goods
contained in them, the meagre staff at Asaoti could possibly have not stopped them from proceeding
with their nefarious activities. Indeed, it is in evidence that some members of the staff eventually ran
away for fear of their lives. This would show the state of things which then prevailed at Asaoti. The
fear entertained by them could not be said to be baseless and though those who ran away from the
place acted in breach of their duty to the railway administration, their action cannot be
characterised as negligent. What is negligence must necessarily be judged in the light of the
circumstances obtaining at that time, Indeed, the duty of care which Section 151 of the Contract Act
casts upon a bailee is not an unlimited one and has to be ascertained with reference to the
circumstances obtaining at the time when the loss, deterioration or damage to the goods bailed
occurred. We agree with the High Court, therefore, that in the context of the conditions obtaining in
this area at the relevant time, the railway administration is not liable for the loss of the
consignments from wagons shown to have been broken open.
11. It was urged by learned counsel appearing for the different appellants that the diary maintained
by the station staff at Asaoti is unreliable and that if that diary is rejected there is no evidence to
show that the wagons had been looted. We will keep the diary out of our consideration. There is,
however, in the first place the evidence of the Station Master and the Assistant Station Master to the
effect that the wagons had been broken open. This evidence was, no doubt, rejected by the trial
Court but was accepted by the High Court and in our opinion the High Court was justified in
accepting this evidence particularly because there is corroboration to their evidence.
12. Then there is the evidence of D. W. 1 Pannalal Head Trains Clerk, Agra. He has stated that the
wagons which were later found to have been broken open at Asaoti were received on different dates
at Agra and that every one of those wagons was then duly rivetted and sealed. He has also deposed
that when these wagons were despatched on August 28 by N. 35 Down they were "intact and in the
same condition in which they were, when they were received." There is nothing vague in his
evidence, which sets out the numbers of each of those wagons. In addition to this there is the
evidence of B. P. Pande, D. W. 6, Asstt. District Commercial Inspector, G. I. P. Railway who was
posted at Agra at the relevant time. He says that he had made a list of the property looted and also of
the property not looted from the wagons which had been broken into. He inspected these wagons
between September 27 and 29th and he has stated that some of those wagons had been completely
looted while some were looted partly and many others were intact. He had brought with him a list
made by him but the trial Court refused to permit its production in evidence on the ground that it
had not been relied on earlier. In our opinion the trial Court went wholly wrong in refusing to admit
this document. In any case there is the evidence of this person and we see no reason for not
accepting it. We are satisfied that the High Court was perfectly right in holding that the
consignments were lost as a result of looting.
13. In so far as C. A. No. 505 of 1962 (Jeet Singh v. Union of India) is concerned, Mr. Agarwala has
brought to our notice that neither in the evidence of the Station Master nor in that of any other
witness has it been established that the wagon in which the consignment of the appellant therein
was being carried has been shown to have been broken open. That is indeed so. But Mr.
Patwardhan. appearing for the respondent says that since the incident itself that is of the looting of
the wagons, had been established and since the evidence clearly shows that the wagons had been
broken open the mere non-mention of the number of the particular wagon in which the appellant's
consignment was being carried has not been specifically deposed to by any one would make little
difference. He also points out that (here is evidence to show that amongst the articles looted were
consignments of turmeric and the consignment of the appellant was of turmeric and, therefore, this
is an additional reason for holding that the loss of the appellant's consignment was because it had
been looted. In our opinion, there is no substance in his argument. It cannot be assumed that
because the other consignments were lost as a result of looting even this one which was not
delivered could be said to have been lost through the same circumstance, that is, by reason of its
being looted. Again, there is nothing to show that the other wagons did not contain turmeric.
14. We, therefore, uphold the decrees of the High Court in all these appeals except the above
mentioned appeal. We, therefore, dismiss them with costs. There will be only one hearing fee. In so
far as that appeal is concerned we allow it, restore the decree of the trial Court and direct that costs
therein shall be paid by the respondent.
K.N. Wanchoo, J.
15. I regret I am unable to agree.
16. These nine appeals on certificates granted by the Punjab High Court raise common questions
and will be dealt with together. The main question that arises in these appeals is the liability of the
railway administration to the consignees of various consignments on account of non-delivery of the
goods consigned to them from various places in India. The appellant's consignments were
admittedly being carried by a goods train No. N-35 Dn. assembled at Agra n or about August 28,
1947 and stabled at Asaoti railway station about half way between Mathura and Delhi. There is no
dispute that these consignments were to be delivered in Delhi and that they were not in fact
delivered. According to the respondent Union of India these consignments were looted from the
stabled train between September 4/11, 1947. The respondent's case was that there was congestion in
the goods yard at Agra. Consequently, the wagons in which these consignments were consigned
along with other wagons carrying other goods were formed into a separate goods train at Agra. This
goods train was taken to Asaoti and stabled there at the siding. Normally this train should have
proceeded to Delhi but as there was congestion in the goods yard at Delhi also, this train along with
several other goods trains was stabled at different wayside stations between Agra and Delhi. The
further case of the respondent was that owing to communal disturbances raging in this part of the
country at that time, the section of the railway between Agra and Delhi was being operated under
conditions of utmost difficulty and in consequence the normal movement of trains was impeded.
17. All the suits had been brought at the instance of the appellants, and the first Court decreed them
on the ground that it had not been established that the goods train had been looted by lawless
elements and so the railway administration and the Union of India were liable to make good the loss
suffered by the appellants. In appeal, the High Court found that the defence had been fully
established and dismissed the suits.
18. in the present appeals we are concerned with the Indian Railways Act, IX of 1890. (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) as it stood before its amendment by Central Act No. 56 of 1949 and Central
Act No. 39 of 1961. The extent of responsibility of railway administrations as carriers of animals and
goods is set out in Section 72 of the Act. That section at the relevant time was as follows:"(1) The responsibility of a railway administration for the loss, destruction or deterioration of
animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway shall, subject to the other
provisions of this Act, be that of a bailee under Sections 151. 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872.
(2) An agreement purporting to limit that responsibility shall, in so far as purports to effect such
limitation, be void, unless it--(a) is in writing signed by or on behalf of the person sending or delivering to the railway
administration the animals or goods, and
(b) is otherwise in a form approved by the Central Government.
(3) Nothing in the common law of England or in the Carriers Act, 1865, regarding the responsibility
of common carriers with respect to the carriage of animals or goods, shall affect the responsibility as
in this section defined of a railway administration.
Thus it will be seen that the responsibility of the railway administration was the same as that of a
bailee under Sections 151, 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act, No. IX of 1872; but that
responsibility could be limited under Sub-section (2) by an agreement complying with the
conditions of that Sub-section.
19. In pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (2), various kinds of risk notes to be executed by a
consignor were in use in the railways after approval by the Governor-General. One such risk-note is
in form B. This risk-note is to be executed by the consignor who wants his consignment to be carried
by the administration at specially reduced rates instead of at the ordinary tariff rate chargeable for
such consignment. All the consignments in these appeals had been des-patched under risk-notes in
this form. It is, therefore, necessary to set out the relevant portion of risk-note B which reads as
follows:-"Whereas the consignment of............
tendered by me/us......for despatch......is charged at a specially reduced rates instead of at the
ordinary tariff rate chargeable for such consignment, I/we the undersigned do in consideration of
such lower charge, agree and undertake to hold the said Railway Administration harmless and free
from all responsibility for any loss, destruction or deterioration of, or damage to, the said
consignment from any cause whatever, except upon proof that such loss, destruction, deterioration
or damage arose from the misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants:
Provided that in the following cases(a) Non-delivery of the whole of the consignment or of the whole of one or more packages forming
part of the said consignment packed in accordance with the instruction laid down in the Tariff or
where there are no such instructions, protected otherwise than by paper or other packing, readily
removable by hand and fully addressed, where such non-delivery is not due to accidents to trains or
fire:
(b) Pilferage from a package or packages forming part of the said consignment properly packed as in
(a), when such pilferage is pointed out to the servants of the Railway Administration on or before
delivery, the Railway Administration shall be bound to disclose to the consignor how the
consignment was dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession or control and, if necessary,
to give evidence thereof before the consignor is called upon to prove misconducts but, if misconduct
on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants cannot be fairly inferred from such
evidence, the burden of proving such misconduct shall lie upon the consignor."
20. Two questions arise in the present appeals. The first is what is the meaning of the word
"misconduct', and the second is, whether on the evidence produced in this case it can be said that
there was misconduct within the meaning of that word. According to the appellants, "misconduct"
means "bad management or "improper conduct", and that this would include not only a positive act
on the part of the railway or its servants but also an omission by any of them to do what was right or
proper. On the other hand, the Union of India contends that an omission to do anything or to take
proper care falls outside the purview of misconduct and that the railway administration is liable for
non-delivery only if it is established that the administration or any of its servants had committed a
positive act which was wrong or improper.
21. There has been sharp conflict of opinion as to the meaning to be given to the word "misconduct"
among the various High Courts in India as is clear from numerous decisions on the point. Three
views have generally prevailed as to what "misconduct" means for the purposes of risk-note form B.
The first view was taken by Guha, J. in ILR 60 Cal 996: ) in these words at p. 1,000 (of ILR Cal): -"It may be taken to be well settled now, that misconduct is not necessarily established by proving
even culpable negligence....Misconduct is something opposed to accident or negligence. . . .It is the
intentional doing of something which the doer knows to be wrong, or which he does recklessly, not
caring what the result may be."
The second view was expressed by Suharawardy, J. in in these words:"Misconduct is distinguished from accident and is not far from negligence not only gross and
culpable negligence, and involves that a person misconducts himself when it is wrong conduct oil his
part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail or omit to do (as the case may be), a particular
10
thing or to persist in the act, failure or omission or acts with carelessness the word "misconduct" as
used in the new risk-note B is wide enough to include wrongful commission and omission,
intentional or unintentional, of any act which it wrongfully did or which it wrongfully neglected to
do, or, to put it in another way, did what it should not have done or did not do what it should have
done......... I am inclined to accept the view that misconduct only refers to acts of gross or culpable
negligence and the term does not ordinarily cover acts of mere negligence. In my judgment the word
'misconduct' denotes any unbusinesslike conduct and includes negligence or want of proper care
which a bailee is to take under Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act. The immunity which the
risk-note brings to the railway company is by shifting the burden of proof."
22.The third View was taken by Fawcett, Actg. C. J., in AIR 1928 Bom 504, and elaborated by Kemp,
Actg, C. J., in AIR 1930 Bom 129, in these words:-"In any case, the expression used in the present risk-note is 'misconduct' which does not ordinarily
cover acts of negligence: M. and S. M. Railway's case, AIR 1928 Bom 504 "I am not prepared to
accept the test of the meaning of the word 'misconduct' as what a reasonable man would have done
under the circumstances. I think the word suggests that a railway servant had been guilty of doing
something which was inconsistent with the conduct expected of him by the rules of the company: B.
B. and C. I. Railway's case, AIR 1930 Bom 129."
In this view misconduct would depend upon whether there were rules made by the railway
administration to cover a particular situation and presumably the learned Judge meant that even
omission to follow the rule may amount to misconduct.
23. These three views were considered in an elaborate judgment by Venkataramana Rao, J. in ILR
59 Mad 789: (AIR 1936 Mad 508), and he accepted the view of Suharawardy, j. and pointed out how
the Indian railway risk-note forms were different from the English risk-note forms, where words
used were "wilful misconduct" while in the Indian forms the word was only "misconduct". He held
that there must be some difference between 'wilful misconduct' and "misconduct" and on that basis
he accepted the view of Suharawardy, J.
24. Section 72 (1) makes the responsibility of the railway the same as that of a bailee under Sections
151, 152 and 161 of the Contract Act; but this is subject to the exception provided in Sub-section (2)
where the responsibility can be limited after there is a written agreement between the consignor and
the railway administration and that agreement is in a form approved by the Central Government.
Sub-section (2) clearly envisages that the responsibility cast on the railway administration by
Sub-section (1) may be reduced if an agreement in the manner provided in Sub-section (2) is made
between the railway administration and the consignor. In the present case the agreement between
the railway administration and the consignor was in risk-note form B which had been approved by
the Central Government and under which the consignor obtained the benefit of specially reduced
rates. Therefore, it may be accepted that the intention behind risk-note form B was to limit the
liability of the railway administration and it would certainly be less than what it would have been
under Section 72 (1). Under Section 151 of the Contract Act, a bailee is bound to take as much care of
the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of
11
his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. As, however, risk-note form B
providing for specially reduced rates was meant to limit the responsibility of the railway
administration, as provided in the risk-note itself, it may not be open to apply the criterion
contained in Section 151 without regard to the provisions in the risk-note with respect to the
responsibility of the railway administration. It is, therefore, necessary to see exactly how the
responsibility was limited by the words used in the risk-note form B and it is in that connection that
I have set out the three views prevalent in this behalf.
25. Now there is no doubt that the railway administration is responsible under risk-note B only on
proof of misconduct. Misconduct must here mean more than mere negligence. It will in my opinion
be a question of fact in each case where mere negligence ends and misconduct begins. I cannot,
however, accept the view of Guha, J. that there must be a positive act which the doer knows to be
wrong or which he does recklessly not caring what the result may be, as the criterion for judging
whether there is misconduct. In this view negligence, however, serious, and even disregard of rules
howsoever gross, would never amount to misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its
servants. That in my opinion would be taking too narrow a view of the meaning of the word
"misconduct" as used in risk-note form B. It is remarkable that the word is "misconduct" and not
"wilful misconduct" and that also has a bearing on the meaning to be attached to it Misconduct must
be something less serious than wilful misconduct and this must be borne in mind in construing the
word "misconduct" as used in risk-note B. Nor is it possible for me to accept the view taken by the
Bombay High Court in B. B. and C. I. Railway's case, AIR 1930 Bom 129, that those omissions were
misconduct which were inconsistent with the rules of the company but all other omissions were not.
That in my opinion would be putting too great a premium on the rules framed by the railway
administration which can avoid the responsibility by not framing rules at all. It seems to me,
therefore, that when the word "misconduct" was used in form B it not only included positive acts of
the type envisaged by Guha, J. but also omission or negligence where such omission or negligence
can in the particular circumstances of a case be said to amount to misconduct. 1 would not go so far
as Suharawardy, J. seems to have gone for he appears to have taken the view that the responsibility
will be exactly the same under risk-note form B as under Section 151 of the Contract Act, for in that
view the limitation provided by Sub-section (2) would become meaningless. Therefore, even if a case
of negligence or omission is covered by Section 151 it may not throw any responsibility on the
railway administration for loss, etc., unless the Court can say in the circumstances of a particular
case that such negligence or omission also amounts to misconduct.
26. In Webster's New International Dictionary the word "misconduct" means to "manage badly" or
"mismanage". In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, "misconduct" means "bad management" or
"mismanagement". Therefore, omission or negligence which may come within the meaning of
Section 151 of the Contract Act may not be misconduct unless the Court is further able to say that
negligence or omission is such as can be called bad management or mismanagement in a business
sense. Thus where negligence consists of omission to follow a rule, misconduct may be easy to infer.
Again where negligence is of such a persistent kind as a prudent man of business will not permit
there may again be an inference of misconduct. Therefore, mere omission to take as much care as
the person would of his goods may not amount to misconduct for the purpose of risk-note form B.
But if the omission is such that a businessman would call it mismanagement or bad management it
12
would amount to misconduct within the meaning of risk-note form B. I am therefore, disposed to
accept the view taken by Suharawardy, ]. subject to this rider, namely, that mere negligence or
omission would not be enough but that negligence or omission should be such that a businessman
would say that it amounted to bad management or mismanage ment.
27. The next question is whether there was misconduct on the part of the railway administration or
its servants which resulted in the loss of the consignments. In this connection reference may again
be made to risk-note form B which throws the responsibility of proving misconduct on the consignor
subject to this that the railway administration is bound to disclose to the consignor how the
consignment was dealt with throughout the time in which it was in its possession or control, and if
necessary to give evidence thereof before the consignor is called upon to prove misconduct. The
risk-note also provides that if misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants
cannot be fairly inferred from such evidence, the burden of proving such misconduct shall lie upon
the consignor.
28. In view of this provision in the risk-note, the railway administration led evidence as to how the
consignments were dealt with till the loss .occurred. There is no dispute that upto the time the
consignments were received in Agra, they were intact. Further the evidence of Evans, Deputy
Controller, Agra Cantonment, shows that there was congestion in the goods yard at Agra, and
Mathura Consequently, certain trains were made up and stabled in various sidings on wayside
stations between Mathura and Delhi. Some goods trains were stabled in the sidings at Kitham,
Palwal, Farah, Chhata and Ballabhgarh. The particular goods train with which we are concerned was
stabled at Asaoti. Evans also stated that the stabled train could not be moved forward or backward
due to communal disturbances and New Delhi was also not in a position to accept the trains freely.
Further, though Evans stated that the situation towards the end of August and beginning of
September was bad on account of communal disturbances, he admitted that no looting had taken
place upto the time when this train was stabled at Asaoti and everything was normal there. It may,
therefore, be accepted that the reason for stabling this train at Asaoti was the congestion in the yards
at Agra, Mathura and New Delhi. Evans also stated that there was no watch and ward staff at Asaoti
and he could not say if any watch and ward staff was assigned at Asaoti when the train was ordered
to be stabled there. He further stated that normal staff at Asaoti in those days was about 12. He
admitted that it anything unusual happened at a particular station, the station staff informed him
about the same and he in his turn contacted the movement officer and conveyed the same to him for
orders. He also admitted that if he got any unusual information from any station, he made a note of
it in his diary. He also said that nothing unusual was reported to him from Asaoti till September 13,
1947 and he had no information before that date that the train stabled at Asaoti had been looted.
There is telephone connection between Asaoti and Agra and the station staff at Asaoti could contact
him by telephone. He further admitted that no member of the station staff at Asaoti was injured and
no personal loss of any of the private property of the station staff was reported. Finally he admitted
that Kosikalan, Palwal and Ballabhgarh were quite normal in those days and that watch and ward
staff is deputed when the Station Master gives information that such staff is required at a particular
station where it does not exist.
13
29. Before I consider the evidence of the staff at Asaoti as to what happened there between August
28 and September 13, 1947, I must refer to what amounts to judicial notice having been taken by the
High Court of the prevailing emergency that arose in August and September 1947. In consequence
the High Court seems to have assumed that during that emergency there were attacks by mobs bent
on looting railway trains stabled at wayside stations. Now it may be accepted that in August and the
entry in the diary and the oral evidence of the two witnesses from Asaoti that the
military-authorities were advised and arrived and took action in the manner suggested. It seems
extraordinary that robbers should have carried on even when there was firing by military.
30. There were two main witnesses from Asaoti in this connection, Mohanlal who was then
Assistant Station Master at Asaoti and Gangasaran Gupta who was then Station Master there.
Besides that the Union of India relied on the station diary of Asaoti Ex. DW-5/1. I may in this
connection mention that the High Court seems to have mistakenly thought that this diary was
produced by Evans. That is. how ever, not correct and Evans had nothing to do with this diary. I
agree with the High Court that the evidence of Evans is reliable but it only gives the reason for
stabling the goods train at Asaoti and that may be taken to be a good reason. But Evans also
admitted that some provision for watch and ward had to be made for a stabled train according to
railway rules.
31. Now it was admitted by the two wit nesses that no arrangement for watch and ward was made
for this train because no such arrangements were available at the station, meaning thereby that
there was no watch and ward staff specifically assigned to Asaoti. The course of events is said to be
recorded in the diary Ex. DW5/1. The two witnesses from Asaoti had given evidence practically on
the basis of that. I shall, therefore, refer to the entries in the diary to get an idea of how the railway
staff acted between the 4th and 15th September when the looting is alleged to have taken place.
32. On 4th September, one Tarachand of the station staff noticed that some thieves were opening
doors of wagons of the stabled train,and shouted from there. The Station Master sent another
member of the station staff and some passengers of a passenger train which was at the station and
they saw ten men running away. Some doors of wagons were found open and were resealed. On this
date there is no note of any looting and it is remarkable that it is said that thieves had come to steal
from the stabled train and had run away on being discovered. This cannot certainly be said to be
looting by mobs bent on looting the stabled train.
33. On 7th September, it was noted that a mob of villagers attacked the stabled load and broke seals
of one wagon and "robbed" away oil tins from it. The station staff shouted and chased them in the
field and found broken tins which were brought back and put into the wagons. The mob had come
from Dig and Pahladpur and run off towards that side. The entry also shows that a wire was sent to
all concerned. Here again it does not appear that there was looting by a mob bent upon committing
dacoity for the persons in the mob ran away on the shouts of the station staff. The number of
persons who composed the mob is not mentioned in the diary and it seems to me that the
descriptions in the diary were becoming more and more lurid as time went on.
14
34. On 9th September, I find an entry in which it is said that last night thieves again tackled the
stabled train and robbed contents of oil tins from the same wagon which had been broken open on
September 7. Here again there is no mention of any mob bent upon looting and all that is said is that
thieves tackled the same wagon which had been broken open two days earlier.
35. Then one September .10, there is an entry to the effect that robbers attacked the stabled train at
11 p.m. and took away goods, namely, oil tins, matches, copra, timber, iron safe, etc., and that the
military was advised. They arrived and opened fire and robbers then ran away. After sometime they
again came and started looting. This entry certainly shows a conceited attack by robbers who were
so bold as not to be worried by the firing by the military. It may be mentioned that besides this entry
and the statement of the two witnesses from Asaoti there is no other evidence to show that any wire
was sent to the military authorities or the military authorities came and opened fire.
36. Then there is an entry on September 11 to the effect that robbers started looting the stabled train
at 6-30 p.m. Military authorities were advised and a detachment of military personnel arrived by
motor truck at 8-45 p.m. and started firing and caught three men, one of whom was wounded. This
man was taken away by car next morning at 7-30 a.m. The diary also records that 37 wagons were
attacked by the robber. Again there is no evidence besides the entry In the diary and the oral
evidence of the two witnesses from Asaoti that the military authorities were advised and arrived and
took action in the manner suggested. It seems extraordinary that robbers should have carried on
even when there was firing by military.
37. On 12th September, there is an entry to the effect that the military escort arrived by passenger
train at 8-35 p.m. and fired two/three times on the robbers who were looting goods from the stabled
train. They killed one and captured four with the looted property. One wounded man was caught
and one bullock was also captured. The dead body and the injured man were removed by train and
the four men and one bullock were taken by railroad at about 7-50 next morning. The diary further
records that as soon as the military escort left, a mob of 500 men came and started looting the
stabled train and removed all kinds of commodities (such as copra, matches, groundnut oil, iron
safe, timber, rafter, turmeric, groundnut, seed, tinsheets, glasses etc.). Messages were then sent and
military escort arrived again at 3-15 p.m. and left at 5-30 p.m. They fired many rounds but nobody
was found killed or wounded. Here again there is no evidence that anybody was killed or there was
any firing by the military except what is to be found in the diary and the statements of the two
witnesses from Asaoti. As I said before, as time went on the descriptions in the diary became more
lurid and what was theft was later shown as determined looting by a mob numbering 500.
38. This was apparently the last looting for on 15th September there is an entry to the effect that
additional police armed guard arrived to protect the station. The military authorities searched
Asaoti village and recovered many things out of the looted property. Here again there is no other
evidence besides the entries in the diary in this connection.
39. The trial Court was not impressed by the truth of the statements contained in the diary. It is
difficult to agree with the view of the High Court about the diary based on the misconception that it
was produced by Evans. Evans had nothing to do with this diary though he undoubtedly was a
15
witness of truth. It seems to me, however, that this diary is unreliable and the trial Court was right in
not relying upon it, particularly with reference to what is recorded in it as having happened on 9th,
10th and 11th September. There is no evidence besides the entries in the diary or oral evidence of the
two witnesses from Asaoti that any one was killed or there was firing by the military a number of
times. I am, therefore, not prepared to place any reliance on the facts entered in this diary.
40. I turn now to the evidence of the two witnesses from Asaoti. Station Master, Gangasaran
admitted that on September 4 there were only ten persons and these persons ran away as soon as he
reached the spot. On 6th and 7th September, only four/five persons came and they also fled away
when the Station Master arrived. On 8th and 9th September again five/ ten persons came and they
also fled away when the Station Master arrived on the spot. This clearly shows that there was no
attack by any mob bent upon looting upto 9th September. The Station Master further stated that he
sent telegrams on August 29, 1947 to Inspector, Watch and Ward at Jhansi to arrange for watch and
ward and repeated the request on the next day but nothing was done. He, however, admitted that he
did not remember if troops came to Asaoti on 8th and 9th September. The real looting, according to
him, took place between 11th and 14th September. But even on the night between 11th/12th
September, when the mob was said to be only 50, they ran away when the Station Master arrived at
the spot. The Station Master further slated that he sent telegrams to police Palwal, Divisional Traffic
Manager, Jhansi, and that he sent such telegrams on each occasion when the stabled train was
attacked. He further admitted that no polite arrived on any day from 11th to 14th September 1947.
He stated that the troops arrived at the fourth looting, i.e., on the night between Llth/12th
September but he did not remember if they arrived in the night or the next morning. He admitted
that the railway has made rules that watchmen should be arranged for a stabled train; but
apparently no arrangement for watch and ward was made by the Station Master. According to the
comparable rule in the Northern Railway Commercial Manual, which we are told is exactly the same
in the Central Railway also, the position with respect to stabled trains is that at such roadside
stations where watchmen are not posted, the duty of watch and ward must be performed by the
menial staff and Station Master must arrange for it. But it does not appear from the evidence if the
Station Master bad arranged for the duty of watch and ward by his menial staff while the stabled
train was at Asaoti. He certainly says that he sent telegrams to the authorities for sending a
complement of watch and ward staff to Asaoti. He also says that he gave information to the
authorities whenever looting took place. But it is curious that the evidence of Evans is--and I have
no reason to doubt that--that he had no information till the 13th September that anything untoward
had happened at Asaoti. It seems, therefore, difficult to accept that the Station Master had really
sent messages for help as he makes out in his oral statement, as well as in the entries in the diary. In
any case taking either view of the situation it seems to me that there was gross negligence on the
part of the railway administration or its servants in this case. In the first place it was the duty of the
Station Master when the goods train was stabled at Asaoti to provide for watch and ward as best as
he could from the menial staff, and this was not done. In the alternative, if the Station "Master could
not do this out of his staff and sent messages for help and they were not heeded, the railway
administration would be responsible for gross negligence in not heeding the messages. It is not as if
the so-called serious looting had started at once; from 4th to 9th on the evidence of the Station
Master and the tatties in the diary for whatever they are worth, there was only attempt at minor
pilferage again and again. This was within the knowledge of the Station Master and he seems to have
16
done nothing to provide watch and ward staff from his station staff as required by rules. Further if
he sent information to the higher authorities they seem to have done nothing to help him. In either
case there was negligence of the station staff as well as of the higher authorities if they had
information--though the evidence is that they had no information till the 13th September. Besides, I
am satisfied on the evidence of the two witnesses from Asaoti that there was no large scale looting by
a large mob in spite of whatever might have been written in the diary on 11th and 12th September,
and I have a grave suspicion that the station staff was perhaps involved in the pilferage that took
place or connived at it and that is why no information seems to have been sent to the higher
authorities till September 13, for this is what Evans says. It is difficult to believe that if the higher
authorities had been repeatedly approached before 11th September they would have ignored the
so-called frantic efforts of the Station Master to get help, in spite of the unusual situation that might
have been prevailing due to congestion in the yards at Agra, Mathura and New Delhi.
41. As for the Assistant Station Master he certainly says that he ran away on 12th September but
admitted that the higher authorities had not given any such advice. He also admitted that there was
no communal tension in Asaoti at the end of August. The Station Master on the other hand
prevaricated and said that he did not remember if the authorities had advised him that the staff
should save their lives, though he practically admitted that he did make such a statement in another
case relating to the looting at Asaoti. There is nothing to show that the higher authorities ever gave
such advice and the Assistant Station Master admitted it.
42. Therefore, as I read the diary and the evidence of the Station Master and the Assistant Station
Master I cannot accept that the case of the Union of India has been made out that there was
widespread lawlessness in that part of the country and that mobs were going about bent upon
looting goods trains, and that it was in those extraordinary circumstances which were beyond the
control of the railway administration that the goods from this stabled train were looted. On the
other hand it appears to me on a review of the entire evidence led on behalf of the Union of India
that no arrangements were made for watch and ward of this stabled train by the Station Master at
Asaoti as he should have done as required by rules. Further if the diary is to be believed there were a
number of attempts at thieving from 4th to 9th September, 1947 from this stabled train. Even in
spite of this nothing was done by the Station Master for the watch and ward of the train as best as he
could. There was, therefore, persistent negligence in the matter of watch and ward of this stabled
train. Further if the statement of the Station Master is true that he gent appeals to the higher
authorities for help and they were not heeded in spite of information as to what had happened
between 4th and 9th September it must be held that there was persistent negligence of the higher
authorities also. In this case, therefore, on the evidence of the railway administration there is
disregard of the rule as to watch and ward and if the diary is to be believed there was persistent
negligence in providing for proper watch and ward both by the Station Master and by the higher
authorities in case the Station Master's statement is true that they had been informed of the
incidents which took place between 4th and 9th of September. Such disregard of rules would,
therefore, amount to misconduct in the circumstances within the meaning of that word in risk-note
form B. Besides such persistent negligence after the events of 4th to 9th September must amount to
mismanagement even from the point of view of a businessman of ordinary prudence. I am not
prepared to believe that there was a kind of dacoity committed on this stabled train between 11th
17
and 12th of September by lawless elements who were bent upon looting the goods train. It seems to
me that at the very best the station staff looked on supinely while the goods from the trains were
stolen or it may be that they were themselves privy to the theft. It is true that theft was on a
somewhat large scale and that may be responsible for the defence that there was looting and what
amounts to a dacoity committed on the train. But on the evidence I am not satisfied that that was
really so. All that seems to have happened was that the goods were stolen from the wagons day after
day because there was no arrangement for watch and ward in spite of the warnings that the station
staff and the higher authorities--in case they were informed had to take from what is recorded in the
diary from 4th to 9th September even if it is true. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence
for the railway administration I am satisfied that this is not a case where the train was looted by a
large lawless mob bent upon looting goods train on account of the communal situation preceding
the division of India in 1947. I cannot take judicial notice of there being such large mobs going about
the country side bent on looting goods trains. All that a Court can take judicial notice of is that there
were communal disturbances in those days which is a very different thing from general lawlessness
resulting in looting of goods trains indiscriminately in that part of the country. The very fact that
Evans had no information of any looting till 13th September seems to suggest that all this happened
because of the station staff either looking on supinely or perhaps actually being involved in the
thefts. That may also explain why at least the Assistant Station Master ran away on 12th to give
colour to the story of lawlessness and looting. But the attempt to show that this was done at the
instance of the higher authorities has failed; and there is no reason to suppose that the theft of goods
which took place from this train could not be avoided if the rule as to watch and ward had been
followed and if there was no persistent negligence assuming that the incidents between 4th and 9th
September as recorded in the station diary were correct. I, therefore, hold on the evidence produced
by the railway administration that the loss took place on account of the negligence of the railway
administration or its servants and thus the Union of India would be liable to make good the loss even on risk-note form B in the circumstances of these cases.
43. I would, therefore, allow all the appeals and set aside the judgments and decrees of the High
Court and restore those of the Subordinate Judge with costs throughout.
ORDER
44. In accordance with the opinion of the majority, Civil Appeals Nos. 497 to 504 of 1962 are
dismissed with costs. There will be only one hearing fee, Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1962 is allowed
with costs.
18

Shiv Nath Rai Ram Dhari and Ors. Vs The Union of India (Uoi) On 10 February, 1965

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shiv Nath Rai Ram Dhari and Ors. Vs The Union of India (Uoi) On 10 February, 1965

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shiv Nath Rai Ram Dhari and Ors. Vs The Union of India (Uoi) On 10 February, 1965

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shiv Nath Rai Ram Dhari And Ors.

vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 10 February, 1965

Supreme Court of India

shall affect the responsibility of a railway-administration as defined in that section. In pursuance of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1201722/

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1201722/

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1201722/

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1201722/

You might also like