Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 100

2.9. Injustice caused by section 80.-

In all these cases, the objection under section 80 was wrongly taken. Even where the objection under section 80 is correctly taken, some injustice may arise. This is illustrated by a Madras case.1 The claim was made against the Railway by both the consignor and the consignee of goods. The consignor had given notice under section 80, but the consignee had not. The High Court held that the plaint was liable to be rejected owing to failure of the consignee to give notice under section 80, and that the consignor (even though he had given notice) could not proceed with the suit, since the claim was not severable.

We are not discussing here the question whether the court could have taken a different view on the particular point at issue. For the present purpose, we may assume that the conclusion reached by the court is in accordance with the terms of section. But the point to make is, that although the letter of the law was implemented, the plaintiffs must have left the court with an acute sense of injustice in their hearts. In this sense, the section, even where it is correctly applied, is bound to lead to a feeling of injustice. Besides this, rejection of the plaint for mere want of notice would mean that even a meritorious case yields no fruits. For all that one knows, the substantive claim might have been justified on the merits, and yet the section entails its dismissal.

1. Doom Dooma Tea Co. v. Union of India, (1982) 1 MLJ 85 (90) (reviews case law).

Litigation by and against the Government - Some Recommendations for Reform Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys