https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199846 Section 77 of the Railways Act was construed broadly to cover claims for non-delivery, wrongful detention, negligence and conversion of railway goods, and written notice in the prescribed form was treated as mandatory; the letters relied on were held insufficient because they did not amount to proper notice to the competent authority. The special limitation provisions for suits against carriers under Articles 30 and 31 of the Limitation Act were applied, with the period running from when delivery ought to have been made, and Article 48 was rejected as inapplicable even where the claim was framed in tort. The risk-note issue was resolved by requiring the railway to explain the consignment's handling, but the claim still failed for lack of notice and limitation. en-us Thu, 19 Feb 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199846 Section 77 of the Railways Act was construed broadly to cover claims for non-delivery, wrongful detention, negligence and conversion of railway goods, and written notice in the prescribed form was treated as mandatory; the letters relied on were held insufficient because they did not amount to proper notice to the competent authority. The special limitation provisions for suits against carriers under Articles 30 and 31 of the Limitation Act were applied, with the period running from when delivery ought to have been made, and Article 48 was rejected as inapplicable even where the claim was framed in tort. The risk-note issue was resolved by requiring the railway to explain the consignment's handling, but the claim still failed for lack of notice and limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Feb 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199846