JETMULL BHOJRAJ vs THE DARJEELING HIMALAYAN RAILWAY CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that the letter dated July 9, 1946, constituted sufficient notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, for claiming compensation for the damaged consignment. The Court ruled that the appellant's claim for damages was implied in the notice, and the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, as the burden was on the respondent to prove that the damage occurred more than one year before the suit was filed. The dissenting opinion argued that the notice was insufficient under Section 77, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the provision.