Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Vimalbai Ganesh Chitte And Others vs Union Of India Thr G.M., South Central ... on 21 November, 2016 cites

Jameela & Ors vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2010

In the case of Jameela and Others Vs. Union of India cited (supra) in the similar circumstances Lucknow Bench ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2016 00:42:27 ::: 7 FA 168.16 of the Allahabad High Court had upheld the contention of the railway administration that the accident in the said case had taken place because of the negligence of the deceased in the said matter, though, no eye witness was examined by the railway administration so as to prove that the deceased was standing at the open door of a train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 158 - A Alam - Full Document

Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008

9. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2016 00:42:27 ::: 8 FA 168.16 one more judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SCC 383. Having regard to the facts involved in the present case, I find it appropriate to reproduce herein-below the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 1o to 12 of the said judgment, which are thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 894 - M Katju - Full Document

Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003

11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12); Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 344 - S V Patil - Full Document

B.D. Shetty And Others vs M/S. Ceat Ltd. And Another on 30 October, 2001

11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12); Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 78 - S V Patil - Full Document

All India Esi Corporation Employees ... vs Director General, Esi Corporation And ... on 17 March, 1999

11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B. D. Shetty vs. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12); Transport Corporation of India vs. ESI Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332 etc.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1