Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Makbool Ahmed And Ors. vs Bhura Lal And Ors. on 2 April, 1985

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Maheshbhai Bhagvatlal Joshi on 20 February, 2014

25. On behalf of the claimant, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Makbool Ahmed and others v. Bhura Lal and others (supra), however, the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in the facts of the said case, the deceased placed his foot on the footboard of the stationary bus and the driver started the bus all of a sudden and the deceased fell down and was run over by the rear wheel.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Vimla Devi And Ors. vs Chaman And Ors. on 18 September, 1991

4. Mr. Bhartiya has also cited before me the case of Makbool Ahmed v. Bhura Lal 1986 ACJ 219 (Rajasthan). My brother Vyas, J., was considering the question of remarriage and held that the compensation should be paid only upto the date of remarriage and for the parents the multiplier was considered as 15 years. This case does not help Mr. Bhartiya in the facts and circumstances of the case in any way. However, I will like to observe that the Constitution of India guarantees equal treatment and particularly Article 15 of the Constitution read with preamble of the Constitution. Chapter IV of the Constitution directs the court and the Government to provide equality of opportunity, equality of status and to give special facilities and concession to the weaker class of the society, namely, the women. The days when the widow remarriage was prohibited have gone and after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act, the doctrine of limited case also lost its ground. Widow has a right to remarry and it is in the interest of the society that remarriage of the young lady should be encouraged and the court should not be an impediment because of the old traditional approach, where the power vested in the man and the females were considered as the second class members. For this purpose, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 also provides the right of absolute ownership to a woman and I am of the view that to say that on account of the remarriage or possibility of remarriage deduction of compensation will be against the spirit of the Constitution and will put a check on the remarriage system provided under various legislations enacted by the Parliament and the State Assembly. I am in disagreement on this point that there should be any impediment or restriction, directly or indirectly, compelling a woman not to remarry. On the contrary, an incentive should be given for remarriage for the preservation of better society. After remarriage generally a woman does not get the same status and benefits of decent life as she used to get earlier. Public feeling requires that there shall not be any deduction on account of possibility of remarriage.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Mukkathil Bhaskaran vs Ravindran And Ors. on 9 March, 1990

In Makbool Ahmed and Ors. v. Bhura Lal and Ors. 1986 ACJ 219 (Rajasthan) : I (1986) ACC 233 it was held that at a bus stop it was the duty of the conductor to stand at the opening of the door to ensure that passengers who wanted to get down have got down and those who wanted to board the bus have boarded it and only thereafter he can give signal for the bus to move. If he gave signal when passengers were still on the foot board, he would be guilty of dereliction of his duty exhibiting rashness and negligence. In that case it was found that there were many passengers standing on the footboard for want to seats inside the bus and the conductor was busy issuing tickets without caring to discharge his duties towards the passengers.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

D.T.C. & Ors. vs Meena Kumari & Anr. on 3 February, 2010

"4. Mr. Bhartiya has also cited before me the case of Makbool Ahmed v. Bhura Lal 1986 ACJ 219 (Rajasthan). My brother Vyas, J., was considering the question of remarriage and held that the compensation should be paid only upto the date of remarriage and for the parents the MAC.APP.No.512-13/2006 & 570-71/2006 Page 17 of 22 multiplier was considered as 15 years. This case does not help Mr. Bhartiya in the facts and circumstances of the case in any way. However, I will like to observe that the Constitution of India guarantees equal treatment and particularly Article 15 of the Constitution read with preamble of the Constitution. Chapter IV of the Constitution directs the court and the Government to provide equality of opportunity, equality of status and to give special facilities and concession to the weaker class of the society, namely, the women. The days when the widow remarriage was prohibited have gone and after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act, the doctrine of limited case also lost its ground. Widow has a right to remarry and it is in the interest of the society that remarriage of the young lady should be encouraged and the court should not be an impediment because of the old traditional approach, where the power vested in the man and the females were considered as the second class members. For this purpose, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 also provides the right of absolute ownership to a woman and I am of the view that to say that on account of the remarriage or possibility of remarriage deduction of compensation will be against the spirit of the Constitution and will put a check on the remarriage system provided under various legislations enacted by the Parliament and the State Assembly. I am in disagreement on this point that there should be any impediment or restriction, directly or indirectly, compelling a woman not to remarry. On the contrary, an incentive should be given for remarriage for the preservation of better society. After remarriage generally a woman does not get the same status and benefits of decent life as she used to get earlier. Public feeling requires that there shall not be any deduction on account of possibility of remarriage."
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next