https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309911 For claims against a carrier, non-delivery of goods was treated as governed by Article 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, with time beginning when the goods ought to be delivered on the facts of the case. On the evidence, the railway's failure to secure the wagon supported liability for the missing 10 bales, and the plaintiff's valuation evidence was accepted. The non-delivery claim was therefore within limitation and recoverable. By contrast, claims for shortage and wet damage to goods actually delivered fell under Article 30 and were time-barred because they were brought more than one year after the loss. The alleged later correspondence was not treated as an enforceable promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. en-us Fri, 13 May 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:55:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309911 For claims against a carrier, non-delivery of goods was treated as governed by Article 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, with time beginning when the goods ought to be delivered on the facts of the case. On the evidence, the railway's failure to secure the wagon supported liability for the missing 10 bales, and the plaintiff's valuation evidence was accepted. The non-delivery claim was therefore within limitation and recoverable. By contrast, claims for shortage and wet damage to goods actually delivered fell under Article 30 and were time-barred because they were brought more than one year after the loss. The alleged later correspondence was not treated as an enforceable promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 May 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309911