Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Govind Singh And Ors. vs A.S. Kailasam And Anr. on 1 August, 1974

The Branch Manager vs G.Raghavan on 23 April, 2008

6. It appears, the learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court disagreed with the decision of this Court in Govind Singh v. A.S.Kailasam reported in 1975 Acc CJ, 215 : AIR 1975 Mad 65. But, I would like to agree with the said earlier decision of this Court which is based on aposteriori approach rather than apriori approach. The practicability and reality behind certain admission of guilt by the drivers in criminal cases should be visualised and with a pinch of salt, such admissions should be taken in other proceedings. The Tribunal by applying its mind independently after scanning the evidence arrived at the conclusion that both the drivers were equally liable for causing the accident.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sudesh Bhalla And Ors. on 26 May, 1990

The learned trial Judge had considered the case of Govind Singh v. A.B. Ailshham . The conviction of the bus driver and the circumstance that on account of collision the taxi had overturned and fallen into a Khudd reveals that bus must had been driven with a high speed. As a result of such speed the car had overtuned. In these circumstances the lower court was justified in fixing liability of corporation to the extent of 60%. The car had also not followed the regulation No. 7 Had the driver followed the regulation No. 7 that the accident could have been averted. Considering the above circumstances we find no error in the judgment of the lower court in holding the corporation liable for damages to the extent of sixty per cent. The case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the corporation are not applicable on the facts of this case. In the case 1974 Accident Cases Journal 458 the deceased was longing his read with grass when the Truck proceeding on the (sic) who had suddenly come on the road. In the case of the collision has taken place when the vehicle entering the main road had entered the road with great speed. As we have seen above the circumstances on record indicate that both the vehicles must have been driven at a very high speed. Since the bus driver had been convicted we feel that there is no justification to hold the other driver solely liable for the accident.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., ... vs Shri Sudesh Bhalla And Others on 26 May, 1990

The learned trial Judge had considered the case of Govind Singh v. A.B. Kailasham, 1975 ACJ 215 : (AIR 1975 Mad 65). The conviction of the bus driver and the circumstance that on account of collision the taxi had overturned and fallen into a Khudd reveals that bus must had been driven with a high speed. As a result of such speed the car had overturned, In these circumstances the lower court was justified in fixing the liability of corporation to the extent of 60%. The car had also not followed the regulation No. 7. Had the driver followed the regulation No. 7 that the accident could have been averted. Considering the above circumstances we find no error in the judgment of the lower court in holding the corporation liable for damages to the extent of sixty per cent. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the corporation are not applicable on the facts of this case. In the case 1974 Accident Cases Journal 458 the deceased was loading his rera with grass when the Truck proceeding on the (sic) who had suddenly come on the road. In the case of 1984 ACJ 276 and 477: (AIR 1984 P & H 317) the collision has taken place when the vehicle entering the main road had entered the road with great speed. As we have seen above the circumstances on record indicate that both the vehicles must have been driven at a very high speed. Since the bus driver had been convicted we feel that there is no justification to hold the other driver solely liable for the accident.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sabir Hussain vs Maya Bai And Ors. on 14 November, 1995

27. Besides the Division Bench's decision of this Court in Vimal Roy's case, 1972 ACJ 314 (Delhi), Punjab & Haryana High Court in Precto Pipe Company v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1984 ACJ 218 (P&H) and Labh Singh v. Sunehri Devi 1988 ACJ 170 (P&H); Calcutta High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Labanya Roy 1985 ACJ 720 (Calcutta); Orissa High Court in South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Puma Chandra Misra 1973 ACJ 46 (Orissa); Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Shantilal Mohanlal v. Aher Bawanji Malde 1985 ACJ 505 (Gujarat); Madhya Pradesh High Court in Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai 1980 ACJ 126 (MP); Madras High Court in Govind Singh v. A.S. Kailasam 1975 ACJ 215 (Madras); Mysore High Court in B.P. Venkatappa Setty v. B.N. Lakshmiah 1973 ACJ 306 (Mysore), Bombay High Court in Gulab Bai Damodar Tapse v. Peter K. Sunder 1975 ACJ 100 (Bombay) and Rajasthan High Court in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewalal 1977 ACJ 150 (Rajasthan), had taken the same view.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Anand Sarup Sharma vs P.P. Khurana And Ors. on 28 September, 1988

30. Besides the Division Bench's decision of this Court in Vimal Roy's case, 19?2 ACJ 314 (Delhi), Punjab & Haryana High Court in Precto Pipe Company v. National Insurance Company Ltd. 1984 ACJ 218 (H & H) and Labh Singh v. Sunehri Devi, 1988 ACJ 170 (P & H) Calcutta High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Labanya Roy 1985 ACJ 720 Calcutta; Orissa High Court in South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Puma Chandra Misra, 1973 ACT 46 Orissa; Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Shantilal Mohanlal v. Aher Bawanji Malde, 1985 ACJ 505 Gujarat; Madhya Pradesh High Court in Balwant Singh v. Jhannubai, 1980 ACJ 126 MP; Madras High Court in Govind Singh v. .S. Kailasam, 1975 ACJ 215 Madras; Mysore High Court in B.P. Venkatappa Setty v. B.N. Lakshmiah, 1973 ACJ 306 Mysore; Bombay High Court in Gulab Bai Damodar Tapse v. Peter K. Sunder, 1975 ACJ 100 Bombay and Rajasthan High Court in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewalal, 1977 ACJ 150 Rajasthan, had taken the same view.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anand Sarup Sharma vs P.P. Khurana And Others on 28 September, 1988

30. Besides, the Division Bench decision of this court in Vimal Rai's cases [1974] 44 Comp Case 316, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Precto Pipe v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1984] ACJ 218 and Labh Singh v. Sunehri Devi [1988] ACJ 170; [1989] 65 Comp 273 (P&H); the Calcutta High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Labanya Ray [1985] ACJ 720; the Orissa High Court in South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purna Chandra Misra, , the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Shantilal Mohanlal v. Aher Bawanji Maldev ; the Madras High Court in Govind Singh v. A. S. Kailasam [1975] ACJ 215; the Mysore High Court in B. P. Venkatappa Setty v. B. N. Lakshmisah [1973] ACJ 306; the Bombay High Court in Smt. Gulab Bai Damodar Tapse v. Peter K. Sunder [1975] ACJ 100 and the Rajasthan High Court in Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewalal, , had taken the same view.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 38 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next