Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 5 , 151 , 152 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 161

Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section:

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section:

Law: Railways Act (IX of 1890)

Section:

  Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ---- S. 5 --- Expression "sufficient cause"---Connotation --- Expression "sufficient cause" was not to be liberally construed merely because the party in default was the Government. 1974 S C M R 223; 1970 S C M R 558; 1988 S C M R 1906 and 1981 S C M R 37 ref. Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ---- Ss.151 & 152 --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---Delay of four days in filing appeal --- Circumstances of the case did not warrant gross negligence on the part of appellant in filing appeal --- Sufficient ground had been made out for condoning delay in riling appeal --- Application for condonation of delay was allowed and appeal was deemed to be within time. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ---- Ss. 130-A & 135-A---Marine Policy--Assigning of --- Marine policy could be assigned under S.130-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Insurer having paid up loss to assured could suo tort-feaser in his own name-- Respondents/insurers having paid up loss to aggrieved party, could maintain action in their own name. East & Wc1st Steamship Company v. Queensland Insurance Company P L D 1963 SC 663; P L D 1975 Kar. 647 and P L D 1976 Kar. 1984 rel. Railways Act (1X of 1890)--- --- Ss. 72 & 73 --- Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.151, 152 & 161 --- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.118 --- Negligence of carriers in respect of goods -- Liability for the loss, destruction*and deterioration of goods --- Burden of proof -- Railway administration's responsibility in respect of goods booked under Railway risk was that of bailee--- Railway must, therefore, take as much care of goods, as a man of ordinary   prudence would take of such goods, and would be liable for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods --- In a case governed by the provisions of Ss.151 & 152, Contract Act 1872, loss or damage of goods, entrusted to bailee, was prima facie evidence of its negligence --- Burden of proof, was therefore, on the bailee to disprove negligence when damage or loss was established.---[Burden of proof]. Railways Act (IX of 1890)--- ---- Ss. 72 & 76 --- Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.151, 152…