Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 832 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana And Another vs Jasbir Kaur & Ors on 5 August, 2003

The State vs 1. Jasbir S/O Randhir Singh on 1 December, 2014

15 Ld counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued that it is not denied by the prosecution that present case is based upon the circumstantial evidence but prosecution has failed to brought on record the entire chain of SC No. 155/14 State vs Jasbir & Ors (Page 27 of 66 ) FIR No.1068/2006 D.O.D 1.12.2014 P.S Prashant Vihar u/s 302/201/120 B/ IPC circumstances which could be sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused persons. First circumstance, as per prosecution, is alleged recovery of weapons of offence from the place of occurrence at the instance of accused persons. It was pointed out that according to the prosecution one Nathu Ram(PW13) and Ramesh Kumar (PW14), who were the resident of same village, are the witnesses to the said recovery but they have denied the same. Further, recovery has been effected at the the instance of all the three accused persons which has no value in the eyes of law. By referring the CFSL result , Ld counsel for the accused persons submitted that no blood could be detected on the aforesaid weapons of offence and as per subsequent opinion of Doctor Ashish Jain, it was only a possible weapon of offence.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Jasbir S/O Puran, on 12 January, 2011

State Vs. Jasbir etc. PS Alipur FIR No.162/02 6 "That he was residing at the address, mentioned in the complaint and he was studying in the 10th class. Yesterday, i.e 27.05.2002, at around 3:30 p.m, he was lying on the roof of his house and his sister ® had gone to gher, where the buffalo were tied to give them fodder and when his sister reached in front of gher, at that time, one Rajbir, who was sala of Pappe started beating her and his sister called him for help and on hearing the said cry, he and his mother Ishwari Devi and his bhabhi Manju reached near (R) and stopped Rajbir from doing the said misdeed. At that time, Arvind S/o Jagdish, Sushma and Babby came there and Arvind was carrying one iron saria in his hand, and they all ran to beat them up, when they ran towards their house to save themselves.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Jasbir on 22 September, 2008

PW.2 Sheela(mother of prosecutrix) deposed that she had lodged a report with the police and her daughter was traced and is living happily with accused. She further stated that both her daughter and her husband were blessed with a son and she had no complaint against the accused. During cross examination she stated that she did not know the exact date of birth of her daughter and the same was recorded by approximation in school register. She further submitted that prosecutrix was above 18 years of age on the date of -:5:- SC No.102/08 State Vs. Jasbir incident and they have no grievance against the accused. 4 Admittedly both the prosecutrix and her mother Smt.Sheela Devi-PW.1 & PW.2 did not support the prosecution version. Prosecutrix categorically deposed that she had left on her own will and married the accused without any coercion and is blessed with a child. The only other point involved for consideration is the age of prosecutrix, as in the initial complaint it was claimed that she was under 18 years of age and further her date of birth was stated to be 10.08.92. The prosecutrix in her statement categorically deposed that her age was under mentioned by less than 4 years. Further her mother in cross examination deposed that the prosecutrix was 18 years of age on the date of incident and her age was recorded by approximation in the school register. Even in the bony age examination of the prosecutrix it was opined that her age is more than 17 years but less than 19 years at the time of examination i.e. 31.05.05.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S, Shitova Tyre Redreader & Others vs Khulem Nimai Singh on 4 September, 2017

By applying the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Anr vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors.'s case (supra), we have given our anxious consideration as to what were the materials before the learned District Forum, Imphal for coming to the amount of -6- compensation more particularly regarding quantum of compensation for "mental agony" i.e. Rs. 8000/- (Rupees eight thousand) and also for awarding the cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) as the "cost of litigation". We are of the considered view that for awarding the said amount of compensation by the learned District Forum, Imphal there is no material and accordingly, we are of the view, in the given case, that the said amount of compensation was not "just and equitable" compensation. Accordingly, we are bound to interfere the said amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 8000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- for the cost of litigation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims ... vs Union Of India And Others on 9 November, 2009

Case No. 23-DFT This case arose out of the death of Ramesh Chugh, aged 46 years, who was an Agriculturist by profession and who was also one of the unfortunate victims of the fire incident. The claimants before the Commission comprised widow of the deceased and his two children. The claim for payment of a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- as compensation was sought to be supported on the basis that the death of deceased had deprived the family of the entire income earned by him from 29 acres of cultivable land owned by him in village Lohgarh, Tehsil Dabwali. The Commission has, however, discussed the evidence and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Another v. Civil Writ Petition No. 13214 of 1996 143 Jasbir Kaur and Others III (2003) Accident and Compensation Cases 90 (SC) came to the conclusion that the source of income remains available to the family since the landed property held by the deceased continues to remain available and stands mutated in favour of the claimants. The contribution made by the deceased towards management and cultivation of the said land could, however, be evaluated and an appropriate amount awarded as the family was forced to engage someone else to do what the deceased was doing during his life time. The Commission has, accordingly, taken the contribution of the deceased to be Rs.7,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd amount out of the same towards his personal expenses to award a compensation of Rs.7,28,000/- by applying a multiplier of 13. The Commission has, in our view, committed a mistake on both counts, viz. taking the contribution of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month as also deducting 1/3rd out of the said amount. In the first place, there was no cogent evidence to establish that the family was indeed spending Rs.7,000/- per month except engagement of one Bihari Lal,a graduate who had passed away in August 2003. Be that as it may, the engagement of a person to look after the lands could not be said to be improbable and unnatural having regard to the fact that ownership of the land and its cultivation was firmly established. In our opinion, the contribution of the deceased which now would necessitate the engagement of someone else to do what the deceased was doing could be assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month. The net loss on account of the death of the deceased could, therefore, be Rs.60,000/- per annum and no more. Applying a multiplier of 13 to the said figure, the amount of Civil Writ Petition No. 13214 of 1996 144 compensation would come to Rs.7,80,000/-. To that amount should be added the conventional figure of Rs.75,000/- to take the total amount of compensation to Rs.8,55,000/- to be paid to the claimants in equal proportions.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Priyatam Mistry vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company ... on 7 July, 2021

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance company, Mr. S.J. Roy has submitted that this Court has passed an order relying upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram (2016 SCC Online Del 2981) as well as the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors., reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244, State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, (2003) 7 SCC 484 and also the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender and others (2006) 13 SCC 60 and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of institution till the date of indemnifying the award, but in the present case since the occurrence is of the year 2015, which was adjudicated in the year 2018, considering it to be just and fair compensation and thereafter another Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred before this Court, as such, this Court may not interfere by enhancing the amount as the compensation granted to the claimants for death of their Son namely Saroj Kumar aged about 8 years, is fair and just compensation, as such, this Court may dismiss the appeal.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K P Deo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next