Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Shahajad And Ors. vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2014

Sheela vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2014

passenger as he was not having valid ticket at the time of alleged incident. The Tribunal relied on the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Shahajad & Others v. Union of India 1 ((2014) ACC 397) and also the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Union of India v. Lakshmi II ((2014) ACC Kar) and found that no document was produced by the applicants or any valid evidence was adduced by the applicants to show that the victim was having valid ticket at the time of alleged incident.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K Harilal - Full Document

Tessy Seno vs The General Manager Southern Railway on 2 May, 2025

In Girija (supra) this Court had taken note of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Shahajad (supra) and had opined that the legal position has been to a certain extent set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 (2) KLT 1060] wherein various conflicting views of different High Courts had been examined and it had been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the mere absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was MFA (RCT) NO.107/2014 13 2025:KER:33390 a bona fide passenger. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had therein held that there is an initial burden on the claimant which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, and the burden will then shift onto the railways, and the issue can be decided on the facts shown and on the attending circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the approach should be to deal on a case-by-case basis based on the facts proved.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Daisy Jacob vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2025

In Girija's case (supra) this Court had taken note of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Shahajad's case (supra) and had opined that the legal position has been to a certain extent set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 (2) KLT 1060] wherein various conflicting views of the different High Courts had been examined and it had been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the mere absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative MFA (RCT) NO.139/2017 11 2025:KER:33307 the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had therein held that there is an initial burden on the claimant which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, and the burden will then shift onto the railways, and the issue can be decided on the facts shown and on the attending circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the approach should be to deal on a case-by-case basis based on the facts proved. It is thus well settled that the initial burden on the claimant will be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. In A.Geetha's case (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the burden to adduce proof to the contrary is squarely on the shoulders of the railway and its officials and they have to discharge the same by conducting appropriate inquiry into the cause of the incident. When neither the railway nor its officials have conducted an inquiry of this nature, it is highly improper on them to blame the claimants for their inaction.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abdul Rahman vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2025

In Girija's case (supra) this Court had taken note of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Shahajad and others v. Union of India [(2014) SCC OnLine Del 127] and had opined that the legal position has been to a certain extent set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 (2) KLT 1060] wherein various conflicting views of the different High Courts had been examined and it had been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the mere absence of a ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had therein held that there is an initial burden on the claimant which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, and the burden will then shift onto the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown and on the attending circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the approach should be to deal on a case-by-case basis based on the facts proved.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1