https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283955 Non-delivery of railway goods by reason of loss attracted the notice requirement under section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, and a consignee's letter gave sufficient notice because it stated the short delivery, claimed compensation, and set out the basis of the demand. The risk note form Z remained operative despite the alleged disclosure dispute under section 72; breach of the disclosure obligation did not automatically convert the railway's liability into that of a simple bailee. Liability continued to depend on proof, or a fair inference, of misconduct, with adverse inference under section 114(g) strengthening only where required disclosure was withheld in proceedings. The High Court decree was set aside and the trial court dismissal restored. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:43:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283955 Non-delivery of railway goods by reason of loss attracted the notice requirement under section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, and a consignee's letter gave sufficient notice because it stated the short delivery, claimed compensation, and set out the basis of the demand. The risk note form Z remained operative despite the alleged disclosure dispute under section 72; breach of the disclosure obligation did not automatically convert the railway's liability into that of a simple bailee. Liability continued to depend on proof, or a fair inference, of misconduct, with adverse inference under section 114(g) strengthening only where required disclosure was withheld in proceedings. The High Court decree was set aside and the trial court dismissal restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283955