1999 (2) TMI 718

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....machinery from M/s Praga Tools Ltd. under the two invoices dated 31-3-1979 for their unit at Rae Bareli. The said consignment was insured with the Plaintiff-Respondent. The carrier of goods was the Defendant-Appellant. It appears that the consignment reached the destination in a badly damaged condition. Under such circumstances, the insured put up a claim for damages before the Insurance Company. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the suit, the same was not maintainable. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent before the High Court of Karnataka was allowed and the suit was decreed. The High Court was of the view that Exhibit P-9 in fact was a deed of assignment and not a deed of subrogation. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant reiterated the argument advanced before t....