Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Mehar Devi And Ors. on 18 July, 1988

Smt. Suki And Ors. vs Hem Singh And Ors. on 6 January, 1993

In State of Punjab v. Mehar Devi, 1990 Acc CJ 274, a Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, placing reliance over the Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in the case of Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh v. Om Sharma, 1983 Acc CJ 203: (AIR 1983 Punj & Har 94) held that while assessing the annual dependency, pension, provident fund and gratuity cannot be taken into consideration.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Baby Komal & Anr. on 27 November, 2012

9. On appreciation of evidence and while relying on State of Haryana through Secretary Transport Chandigarh v. Sudesh Raizada & Ors. 1991 ACJ 54; State of Punjab v. Mehar Devi & Ors. 1990 ACJ 274 the Claims Tribunal held that the finding on negligence having attained finality in a connected case is binding in the subsequent case and cannot be MAC APP 167/2008 Etc. Page 10 of 33 challenged in subsequent proceedings arising out of the same accident.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Sompal vs Fazal Haque S/O Sh. Mohd. Jan on 30 November, 2007

They also cited State of Punjab V. Mehar Devi & Ors 1990 ACJ- 274 a judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court. In this case also similarly once the claim case is settled arising of the same accident where the finding on the negligence has not been appealed from is binding in the connected petition which has also arisen from the same and it was held that the principle of estoppal will estopp them from reagitating.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Parminder Singh on 3 May, 1996

9. Respondents' learned counsel relying on Irma Siddigui and Anr. v. State of U.P, 1987(2) A.C.J. 645 State of Punjab v. Mehar Devi and Ors., 1990(1) A.C.J. 274 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., (1986-2)90 P.L.R. 106 and Haryana State through Secretary Transport Chandigarh and Anr. v. Sudesh Raizada and Ors., (1990-2)98 PLR 86 raised a preliminary objection that by this Single award 5 claim petitions were decided as they were consolidated, the State-appellant has preferred appeals only against the award given with regard to two claim petitions. Since the appellant has not filed appeal against the other awards, the finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by the appellant has become final. Therefore, finding on issue No. 1 now cannot be assailed by the appellant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - S Saksena - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Sunita Aggarwal & Ors. on 30 October, 2012

5. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal was well reasoned and logical. Apart from this, it is important to note that in the connected MAC APP.193/2008 the Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited has not disputed the finding on negligence. In this view of the matter, it would be estopped from challenging the finding on negligence in the instant case also. I am supported in this view by reports of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana through Secretary Transport Chandigarh v. Sudesh Raizada & Ors. 1991 ACJ 54; State of Punjab v. Mehar Devi & Ors. 1990 ACJ 274 and a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Sandhya v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation 2000 ACJ 1565.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - G P Mittal - Full Document
1