The Calcutta Law Journal. 16th September 1929

And the reason is that the writing is tacitly considered by the parties themselves as the only repository and the appropriate evidence or the agrement.” The same view was taken by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of M. Subramoniam v. Lutehmats(a) and this view of the law was also held to be correct by the Calcutta High Court in 2926 in the case of Khetra Nath Sivar v. [...] With all due respect to the learned Judges who decided the above cases it is said that neither the Goods Consignment Note (or the Forwarding Note) nor the Raiway Receipt can be called the document containing the terms of the contract between the parties The Consignment or the Forwarding Note is a creature of setion 58 sub-section (I) of the Indian Railways Act 189o. [...] Such a declaration if not given by the sender or the deliverer at the forwarding station can'be called for from the consignee at the destination station. This fact of the right of the Railways to get a declaration from the consignee after the carriage of the goods when no declaration hat been made at the forwarding station is by itstlf an indication stowing that such a declaration can hardly b [...] 49n that the Goods Consignment Note is not the basis of the contract between the parties as the description of the goods given by the consignor in the Goods Consignment Note was not a part of the contract. [...] The entries made by the consignor at the top portion of a Goods Consignment Note and those made by the Railway officials at the bottom portions thereof dre some of the incidents of the contract between the parties and are variable.