1981 having rejected this objection as to jurisdiction, Respondent preferred C.R. 2938 of 1981 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the High Court to have that order revised.
The matter was re ferred to a Full Bench, culminating in the order number under appeal.
This was assailed before the High Court by the Respondent.
3831 of 1985 in the Court of the Small Causes, Calcutta, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6,573.50p.
on account of snort deliveries of two companysignments booked with the Respondent on 27.4.1984 and 24.7.1984 respectively, Ex Saugar in Central Railway to Ramkrishtopur in Eastern Railway.
224 734 of 1988.
This was said in a case governed by the old Section.
Similar objec tion as to jurisdiction having been urged, the trial Court rejected that objection and decreed the suit.
24 Parganas, West Bengal, seeking recovery of Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.87 of the Calcut ta High Court in Ref.
The old Section did number deal with liabil ity for claims in respect of goods carried by a single Railway.
carried by more than one Railways or what, in the companycerned jargon, is called through booked traffic and provided that a suit inter alia for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or numberdelivery companyld be brought against the Railway Administra tion with which the booking had taken place or against the Railway Administration of the delivery station.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The Full Bench, however, has left open the question whether Section 80 also over rides clause 12 of the letters patent.
362/82, C.R. No.
The Full Bench, resolving the earlier companyflicts of Judicial opinion in the High Court on the points has held Section 80 as companytaining within it a self contained scheme for suits envisaged by it and that Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts, Act 1882 stand excluded from operation.
3803 of 1980.
75/81, Civil Order No.
1/83 from C.R. Case No.
13,200 respecting an alleged short delivery of a companysignment booked with the Respondent on 94.4.1975 Ex Ernakulam to Ranchi, a station under the South Eastern Railway Administration.
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Badar Durrez Ahmed, Parijat Sinha, K. Sarkar, A.K. Sahay for the Appellants.
Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, A ,K. Gan guli, C.V. Subba Rao, A. Subba Rao and Hemant Sharma for the Respondent.
The trial Court by its order 22.5.
In C.A. 734 of 1988, appellant instituted a Suit No.
Respondent companytested the suit on grounds, inter alia, that having regard to the said Section 80, the Court at Alipore had numberjurisdiction.
The choice of the forum was regulated by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the relevant provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, as the case may be.
In the original proceedings from which C.A. 224 of 1988 arises, appellant instituted Money Suit No.
35 of 1978 against the Respondent in the Court of the 6th Sub Judge at Alipore, Distt.
