Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Gurunath P. Naik And Ors. vs Narendra Govind Chodankar And Ors. on 21 July, 1994

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Hukali And Ors. on 3 July, 2002

12. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shri Gurunath P. Naik and Ors. v. Shri Narendra Govind Chodankar and Ors., I (1995) ACC 428 while considering the doctrine of contributory negligence held that it is a rule of evidence that a person who ought to have been examined is not examined or a person who was required to tender evidence shies away from Court, an adverse inference must be taken against such person. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the appellant therein, who was driver of the offending bus shied away from the Court and in the facts and circumstances, the Court refused to examine the point of contributory negligence on the basis that the evidence of the driver was necessary in that case to understand as to how the accident took place. In this view of the matter, an adverse inference against the driver of the offending truck has to be drawn holding him negligent for the said accident and, therefore, I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the Tribunal on the point of negligence.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Vimal Devi And Ors. vs Hari Singh And Ors. on 31 July, 2002

18. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shri Gurunath P. Naik and Ors. v. Shri Narendra Govind Chodankar and Ors. (3), while considering the doctrine of 'contributory negligence' held that it is a rule of evidence that a person who ought to have been examined is not examined or a person who was required to tender evidence shies away from Court, an adverse inference must be taken against such person. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the appellant therein, who was driver of the offending bus shied away from the Court and in the facts and circumstances, the court refused to examine the point of contributory negligence on the basis that the evidence of the driver was necessary in that case to understand as to how the accident took place. In this view of the matter, an adverse inference against the driver of the offending bus has to be drawn holding him negligent for the said accident and, therefore, I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the Tribunal on the point of negligence.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Mahaveer Prasad vs Roshni Devi And Ors. on 3 July, 2002

10. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court In Shri Gurunath P. Naik and Ors. v. Shri Narendra Govind Chodankar and Ors., 1995 ACC 428 while considering the doctrine of contributory negligence held that it is a rule of evidence that a person who ought to have been examined is not examined or a person who was required to tender evidence shies away from Court, an adverse inference must be taken against such person. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the appellant therein, who was driver of the offending bus shied away from the Court and in the facts and circumstances, the Court refused to examine the point of contributory negligence on the basis that the evidence of the driver was necessary in that case to understand as to how the accident took place. In this view of the matter, even on the principle of adverse inference against the driver of the offending jeep, I hold the driver of the jeep to be negligent in the said accident and, therefore, I do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document
1