Railway
Railway legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Railway Commercial Manual issued by former North Western Railway-Has no statutory force-Paras. 1127 and 1128 of Manual-Entirely in nature of Administrative instructions liable to alteration by appropriate authority at any time-Any violation of instructions contained in Manual-Cannot sustain any claim for writ under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962)[Railways Act (IX of 1890) (Omitted S. 29)].
Railway Goods consigned from Delhi in India to Nowshera in Pakistan-Railway in Pakistan subsequently agreeing to re-book goods from Nowshera to Karachi-Held that goods were made over to the Railway Administration in Pakistan which was responsible for loss.
Carrier of goods-Railway-Loss of goods-Negligence -Burden of proof-Railways duty as bailee-Failure-Liability of Railway-Dwarka Nath PaiMohan Chaudhry v. Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (A I R 1917 1' C 173) explained and criticised-Viewpoints of Akhlaque Hussain J. and Yaqub Ali J.-Evidence Act (1 of 182), S. 106-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 151-Railways Act (IX of 1890), S.72.
Carrier of goods-Railway-Liability of, for non-arrival of goods-Negligence-Burden of proof-Issues involved-Proof of circumstances attending loss-Burden on Railway-Proof of negligence-Burden on plaintiff-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 106-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 151.
"Railway", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15083
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Railway"
1987 P Cr
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1987 P L C 629
Syed ASHRAF ALI SHAH Versus THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others
Court: Lahore High CourtP L D 1991 Karachi 359
and 2 others‑‑Appellants Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 54‑‑‑Notification No.S.R.0.170(1)/83, dated 17‑2‑1983‑‑‑Plaintiff society acquiring land in question from Pakistan Railways through registered sale‑deed‑‑ Defendants treating plaintiffs as encroachers, demolished boundary wall constructed by plaintiffs around such land, without giving any notice ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Land in question was acquired by Railway Administration in lieu of land earlier used and occupied by a department of defendant and same was duly handed over to Railway Administration‑‑‑Notification No.S.R.O. 170(1)/83, dated 17‑2‑1983, conveyed sanction of President to the revision of rules relating to the use of surplus Railway land and authorised Railwav Administration to lease out available plots of Railway land not required for development work on quasi permanent basis for purposes beneficial to railway staff welfare through organisations such as plaintiff society‑‑‑Railway Administration was thus competent to transfer its surpluE land to plaintiff society‑‑‑Transfer of land in question to plaintiff society being valid, defendants had no right to interfere with the same. pp. 363, 364 A & B1984 C L C 477
KHAQAN AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: KarachiP L D 1961 Dacca 218
SATYA CHARAN DATTA‑Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA‑Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1959 (W
S. ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑Plaintiff Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑Defendants
Court:1992 P L C (C
HABIB-UR-REHMAN Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS,
Court: Federal Service TribunalP L D 1952 Lahore 104
GHULAM RASUL‑Convict‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent
Court: High Court2020 S C M R 1216
N/A
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan