Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)

G R Channappa vs Channaiah on 25 September, 2019

In this regard, the decision relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Dolfy A.Pais Vs. Lalitha Therasa Sequiera reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4137 would lend credence to the finding given by the First Appellate Court. It is a well settled proposition of law that the appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm findings of the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court must give findings and reasons that if the appraisal of the evidence by the Trial Court suffers from material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the Appellate Court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact. Therefore, in the light of the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the First Appellate Court that the Trial Court, in fact, committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record, cannot be faulted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009

Similarly, in the cases reported in 2002(2)MLJ9 (S.C) in the case of M.P.Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and others, 2008(4)L.W.289 in the case of The Chairman,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras-2 and one another vs. Mrs.Lalitha and two others and 2008(3)MLJ 160 in the case of Lilly Stanislaus vs. Chairman, T.N.E.B.,Chennai and others, the Honourable Supreme Court and our Honourable High Court after elaborately discussing the strict liability theory held that the writ petition is maintainable. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the writ petition is maintainable and the respondents are liable to pay compensation.
1