<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1974 (2) TMI 74 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168651</link>
    <description>Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act was construed broadly to protect the Port Trust in short-delivery claims, including non-delivery arising from omissions closely connected with the discharge of statutory duties. The provision applied where the conduct had a reasonable nexus with official functions, so the plea that an omission fell outside the section was rejected. Limitation for short delivery began when the consignee knew, or should reasonably have known, that the goods had been landed, were in the Board&#039;s custody, and should have been delivered; the date on which the bulk was delivered was treated as a strong indicator for the missing goods. Later letters about searching for the goods did not extend time, and the claim was held time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2015 10:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (2) TMI 74 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168651</link>
      <description>Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act was construed broadly to protect the Port Trust in short-delivery claims, including non-delivery arising from omissions closely connected with the discharge of statutory duties. The provision applied where the conduct had a reasonable nexus with official functions, so the plea that an omission fell outside the section was rejected. Limitation for short delivery began when the consignee knew, or should reasonably have known, that the goods had been landed, were in the Board&#039;s custody, and should have been delivered; the date on which the bulk was delivered was treated as a strong indicator for the missing goods. Later letters about searching for the goods did not extend time, and the claim was held time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>