UNION OF INDIA vs AMAR SINGH

The Supreme Court held that an implied contract of bailment existed between the respondent and the E. P. Railway, making the Railway liable for the loss of goods. The Court found that the N. W. Railway had authority to appoint the E. P. Railway as the immediate bailer, as per Section 194 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court also ruled that the suit was not barred by limitation, emphasizing that the burden of proof lay with the appellant to demonstrate that the loss occurred beyond one year from the date of the suit.