3050 305 1 of 199 1.
This challenge having failed in each of the civil revisions, the appellant has preferred these civil appeals.
Ac companyding to the respondents the goods aforesaid were deliv ered at New Delhi in a damaged companydition resulting in loss to the first respondent and a suit was instituted for recov ery of the loss so sustained by the respondents in the Court of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 23.8.90 13.6.1990 of the Madras High Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos.
It has its principal office at Bombay and branch offices at various other places which shall hereinafter be referred to as subordinate of fices.
M s Tropical Agro Systems Private Limited, the respond ent 1 in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
The respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Periakulam within whose territorial jurisdiction the subordinate office of the appellant where the goods were entrusted for transport is situate for damages alleging that the fire was due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the staff of the appellant.
14692 of 1990 on the other hand entrusted certain packets of pesticides insured with the second respondent, M s Oriental Insurance Company Limited to the appellant at its subordi nate office at Madras for being carried to New Delhi.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
S. Nargolkar, D.M. Nargolkar and A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondents.
14660 of 1990 who is a dealer in cardamom entrusted a companysignment of 851 kilograms of carda mora to the appellant at its subordinate office at Bodinaya kanur in Tamil Nadu to be delivered at Delhi.
M s Prasad Trading Company, the respondent in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. Special leave granted.
1236/85 and 2758 of 1988.
Since in both these appeals an identical question of law arises they are being decided by a companymon judgment.
Facts in a nutshell necessary for appreciating the question involved may be stated.
After the goods had been transported by the appellant and kept in a godown at Delhi the same got destroyed and damaged in a fire as a result whereof the companysignee refused to take delivery.
S.K. lyer, Rajiv Datta and Shahid Azad for the Appellant.
M s Patel Roadways P Limited, the appellant in both these appeals carries on the business of a carrier and transports goods on hire.
