Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Anju Mukhi And Anr. vs Satish Kumar Bhatia And Ors. on 13 December, 1996

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Pushpa Narayan Khurde And Others on 18 December, 2020

Only in case of Anju Mukhi & another vs. Satish K. Bhatia & others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by High Court of Madhya Pradesh. High Court of Madhya Pradesh has considered the provisions of Section ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2020 03:09:21 ::: fa.1379.18.jud 13 21(iii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It says about right of a wife to claim maintenance till she remarries.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S M Modak - Full Document

Pramila And Ors. vs Sarvar Khan And Ors. on 12 March, 2001

It is by compulsion. She was not responsible for the death of her husband in the accident, therefore, she cannot be divested of the absolute right to claim compensation on remarriage. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not debar her. Since she becomes entitled to the compensation, she cannot be divested from it. These submissions were not advanced before the learned Judges in Anju Mukhi's case, 1998 ACJ 400 (MP), therefore, that case is clearly distinguishable and decisions in Sobha Jain's case, 1983 ACJ 327 (Patna) and Kiran Lata's case, 1993 ACJ 130 (Rajasthan), are more pragmatic and give broader thrust to widow's right to compensation on death of her husband. It is important that 'dependent' and 'legal representative' are given practical, purposeful and pragmatic meaning to avoid damage to the entitlements of widow who remarries after the death of her husband in the accident. In this case, the widow marries after the award of compensation in her favour by the Claims Tribunal. The result, therefore, is that the plea raised by the two other claimants (parents) is not sustainable and is, therefore, rejected. Respondents are held responsible for payment of compensation jointly and severally.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - A Mishra - Full Document

Braj Bhushan Lal Awasthi vs Smt. Urmila (Since Deceased) And 11 ... on 28 July, 2022

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Smt. Anju vs. Satish Kumar 2018 (127) ALR 557 and submitted that ingredients of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is required to be fulfilled, meaning thereby amendment application can only be allowed in case facts are not brought into the knowledge of plaintiff-petitioner even after due diligence at the time of filing of suit.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - N Tiwari - Full Document

Kartikram Kushaliram Dhimar And Anr. vs Chandragopal Ramlal Verma And Ors. on 7 July, 1997

9. Re. Entitlement of compensation to parents : The parents only have come up in appeal to claim compensation though the widow who has remarried was also entitled to compensation till the date of her remarriage as is the view of this Court in Smt. Anju Mukhi and Anr. v. Satish Kumar Bhatia and Ors., M. A. No. 484 of 1992 decided on 13-12-1996 (since reported in 1998(1) MPLJ 25). However the appellants are the parents who are the legal representatives of the deceased under section 110-A(1) of the Act of 1939, would be entitled to compensation and the compensation cannot be denied to them merely on the basis that they were not dependent.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - R Gupta - Full Document

Kartik Ram And Anr. vs Chandra Gopal And Ors. on 7 July, 1997

9. Re: Entitlement of compensation to parents: The parents only have come up in appeal to claim compensation though the widow who has remarried was also entitled to compensation till the date of her remarriage as is the view of this Court in Anju Mukhi v. Satish Kumar Bhatia 1998 ACJ 400 (MP). However, the appellants are the parents who are the legal representatives of the deceased under Section 110-A(1) of the Act of 1939, would be entitled to compensation and the compensation cannot be denied to them merely on the basis that they were not dependent. [See: Gujarat State Road Trans.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - R Gupta - Full Document

Rukmani Bai And Ors. vs Prahlad Singh And Anr. on 10 September, 2001

15. A Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Anju Mukhi v. Satish Kumar Bhatia 1998 ACJ 400 (MP), after taking into consideration the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 had observed that when a wife cannot claim financial contribution from her husband on her remarriage on the same reasoning a widow cannot claim compensation on the basis of loss of the dependency after her remarriage. In the circumstances, it was held that to maintain an application to claim compensation for the death of her husband she must not only be widow at the time of the death of her husband but she should also continue as such to be the legal representative of the deceased husband until the final decision.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next