Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 381 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Sharma& Ors vs Bachitar Singh & Ors on 7 February, 2011

Smt Dhaneshwari & Anr. vs Tejeshwar Singh & Ors. on 19 March, 2012

185. There was no evidence with regard to the deceased‟s income or his qualification. His income could have been taken only on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker. The addition of 50% was not permissible for the reasons as stated earlier. The loss of dependency comes to `5,91,138/- (`5278 - 1/3 X 12 X 14). The compensation on account of loss of love and affection is also required to be reduced to `25,000/- from `75,000/-.(Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627).
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 181 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Smt. K. Jayasree & Others vs K. Shankara Reddy And Others on 22 April, 2014

b) In Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (4 supra) it was held that the Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance should be included in the salary for determining gross salary of the deceased. There is no dispute with regard to this principle also since the Tribunal has not excluded Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance from the gross salary of the deceased.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Regional Manager, U.P. State Road ... vs Smt.Nisha Dubey And 2 Others on 9 December, 2016

The other amount cannot be deducted as per ratio laid down by Apex Court in Sunil Sharma & Others Vs. Bachitar Singh & Others (supra), wherein it has been held that deduction of House Rent, Allowance, Medical Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Dearness Pay, Employees Provident Fund, Government Insurance Scheme, General Provident Fund, C.C.A. is not permitted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Unique Case Id No.02406C0421112 vs Suit Nos.677/2010 & 503/211 (Mukesh Sah ... on 1 December, 2012

"It is urged that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is excessive. Normally, when full compensation towards loss of dependency is granted only a nominal sum is awarded towards loss of love and affection. The trend of the High Court and the Supreme Court is to grant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under this head. Such a sum was granted by the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma V. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 towards love and affection.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudipta Kumar Das vs Chandermani Devi & Ors. on 11 October, 2012

19. A compensation of `50,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection was on the higher side. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted ` 25,000/- only (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to `25,000/- only.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Smt. Poonam Devi & Ors. on 29 November, 2012

10. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `1,25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms MAC. APP. 1151/2011 Page 4 of 6 of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only ` 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to ` 25,000/- only.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - G P Mittal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next