Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 486 (1.60 seconds)
Documents citing Smt Shashikala vs Gangalakshmamma on 15 July, 2013

Smt. Chanda Kamboj vs Shri Vijender Singh on 6 October, 2015

It may further be noticed that Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashikala's case did not provide addition towards future prospects pendente lite the aforesaid issue, wherein Suit No.365/12 - Chanda Kamboj & Anr. vs. Vijender Singh & Ors. 14 of 32 the deceased was an income tax payee carrying business of newspapers and had relied upon Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Delhi District Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Mohammed Siddique & Ors on 18 July, 2017

18. The claimants, however, submit that the non-pecuniary damages awarded by the impugned judgment are inadequate. Having regard to the rulings in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the grievance is found to be partially correct. The award on account of loss of love and affection at Rs.1 Lakh is appropriate, but the non- pecuniary damages on account of funeral expenses and loss to estate are on the lower side. Therefore, the same are increased to Rs. 25,000/- each.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 25 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Co ... vs Sunita Devi And Ors on 17 January, 2017

7. Learned counsel‟s contention that since the Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala and Others Vs. Gangalakshmamma and Another reported in 2015 (2) T.A.C. 867 (S.C), has taken note of the divergent views of co-ordinate Benches on the contentious issue of addition of income towards future prospects in the case of self-employed persons, daily wagers, labourers and persons employed in unorganized sector in the backdrop of the judgments rendered in Sarla Verma's case (2009), 6, SCC 121, Santosh Devi (2012) 6, SCC, 421, Reshma Kumari (2013) (2) TAC 369 and Rajesh Vs. Rajvir (Supra) and referred the matter to a larger Bench, hence, the question of increment in income by addition of future prospects cannot be gone into at this stage is not acceptable for the reason that in the said case their Lordships have referred the matter to a larger Bench, but, they have not disturbed or expressed any opinion or view on merit.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A K Gupta - Full Document

S.Ravamma vs S.Jayaraman on 8 August, 2022

13(i).As per Ex.P31/pension certificate, the date of birth of the deceased is 29.06.1949. The accident has occurred on 13.03.2015. Therefore, the deceased had completed 65 years, 8 months and 13 days at the time of accident. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (1) TNMAC 785 (SC) (Shashikala and others vs. Gangalakshmamma and another) and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken only the completed age of the deceased for applying multiplier. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

The Branch Manager, National Insurance ... vs Shova Lepcha And Ors on 6 May, 2016

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2013) 9 SCC 54 3 (2013) 9 SCC 65 4 (2015) 9 SCC 166 5 (2015) 9 SCC 150 4 MAC App. No. 13 of 2015 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shova Lepcha & Ors. that the issue relating to payment towards future prospects was considered in two earlier decisions Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh2 and Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan3 and two divergent views were given, which was noticed in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa4 and Shashikala vs. Gangalakshmamma5 and the Supreme Court ultimately referred the matters for consideration by a larger Bench, therefore, no final decision on this point is there. His submission is that since the matter has come up for hearing, it may be directed to the Appellant to deposit the entire amount of award except the amount awarded towards future prospects (i.e. Rs.3,24,000/-) and the matter may be kept pending for some time so that a final verdict from the Supreme Court on the issue referred to by the Judgments of Pushpa4 and Shashikala5 may come and then the matter may be taken up for hearing once again for making a command in relation to the said amount of future prospects.
Sikkim High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S K Sinha - Full Document

Maya Devi And Ors. vs National Insurance Co. on 5 April, 2016

5. Following the view taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh each on account of loss of love & affection and loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expense are added. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is computed as (14,18,000 + 2,50,000) Rs.16,68,000/-.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Smt Kamla And Others vs Samay Singh And Others ... on 13 October, 2023

esa e`rd dh mez 50 ls 51 o"kZ dh vk;q ds e/; gksus ij mls 46 ls 50 o"kZ dh vk;q oxZ esa gh ekurs gq, blh vk;q oxZ ds vuqlkj xq.kd iz;qDr fd;k x;k gSA blh izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d fofuf'p; Shashikala & Ors. Vs. Gangalakshmamma & Anr.: 2015 ACJ 1239 esa e`rd dh mez 45 o"kZ 5 ekg o 28 fnu dh vk;q gksus ij e`rd dks 41 ls 45 o"kZ dh vk;q oxZ esa gh ekurs gq, blh vk;q oxZ ds vuqlkj mldh Hkfo"; esa vk; dh o`f) dh izR;k'kk djrs gq, xq.kd iz;qDr fd;k x;k gSA pwafd oDr ?kVuk e`rd dh vk;q 41 o"kZ ls de FkhA vr% mi;qZDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr dh jks'kuh esa e`rd dh vk;q 40 ls 41 o"kZ ds e/; gksus ds rF; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, mls 36 ls 40 o"kZ ds vk;q oxZ esa ekudj blh vuq:i xq.kd dk iz;ksx fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gSA us'kuy bZa';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM cuke iz.k; lsBh o vU;% ¼2017½ 16 ,l-lh-lh- 680 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj e`rd dh 40 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mijksDr fu/kkZfjr ekfld vk; 5]000@& #i;s ij 25 izfr'kr dh Hkfo";&o`f) fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA rn~uqlkj e`rd dh fu/kkZfjr vk;
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next