Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Madhusudan Das & Ors on 20 October, 2008
succeed, unless of course the
workman has exposed himself to an added peril by
his own imprudent act..."
It was furthermore held
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 425 (4.34 seconds)Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr on 10 November, 2006
succeed, unless of course the
workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his
own imprudent act"
The question recently has been considered
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Ibrahim Mahommed Issak on 14 August, 1969
succeed, unless of course the workman has
exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act.
In Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway ... employment, or
reasonably incidental to the employment, or
conversely, was an added peril and outside
the sphere of the employment, are all
different ways
Jaya Biswal & Ors vs Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General ... on 4 February, 2016
succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself
to an added peril by his own imprudent act.”
The learned counsel contends that the judgment
Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath vs Branch Mgr.,Oriental Insurance ... on 12 February, 2009
succeed, unless of course the
workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his
own imprudent act."
19. The above position was again
Mst.Param Pal Singh Tr.Father vs M/S National Insurance Co.& Anr on 14 December, 2012
succeed, unless of course the workman has
exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. In
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway ... test for determining whether an accident “arose out of
the employment.”
(Emphasis added)
27. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions
Rajanna vs Union Of India on 19 April, 1995
succeed. unless of course the workman has
exposed himself to an added peril by his own
imprudent act............".
(Pages 872-873)
(emphasis supplied)
This
Daivshala vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 29 July, 2025
succeed, unless of course the workman has
exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act….”
(Emphasis supplied)
Here again, the court used ... supra) was delivered on 10.05.1963. By an amendment
with effect from 28.01.1968 (added by Act 44 of 1966), Section 51C
was introduced
Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath vs Branch Mgr.,Oriental Insurance ... on 12 February, 2009
succeed, unless of course the
workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his
own imprudent act."
19. The above position was again
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd vs Dan Bahadur Singh & Ors on 27 April, 2007
continuation in service or payment of regular salary to a
casual, ad hoc, or daily rate employee. Such directions
are executive functions ... grave
peril for the judiciary.
47. We are of the opinion that if the court/tribunal
directs that a daily rate or ad