Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)
Beer Bikram Kumar Singh vs Datex-Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd on 21 March, 2014 cites

Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 May, 2000

Mr. Roychoudhury, took us through the pleadings in the plaint, paragraph 49 thereof and the written statement also paragraph 49 in dealing with the particulars of the plaintiff's claim for damages. He submitted that the bare allegation made by the defendant that there was no justification or basis for the amount of damages of Rs.1,07,68,075/-claimed was at best an evasive denial. He relied on Order 8 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to submit that the claim made by the plaintiff on account of damages by particulars given in paragraph 49 of the plaint thus stood admitted. According to Mr. Roychoudhury the plaintiff, therefore, had proved actual loss suffered. To substantiate his submissions, Mr. Roychoudhury relied upon the decisions reported in (2004) 1 WBLR (Cal) 799 (WBSEB Vs. Dilip Kumar Roy and Ors.), (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705 (ONGC Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.), AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2003 (Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India) and AIR 1985 Delhi 45 (Andard Mount (London) Ltd. Vs. Curewel (India) Ltd. New Delhi).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 140 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

M. Lachia Setty & Sons Ltd. Etc. Etc vs The Coffee Board, Bangalore on 9 October, 1980

Mr. Majumdar continued on the question of assessment of damages by elaborating on the principle of mitigation of damages. He relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 162 (M. Lachia Setty and Sons Ltd. Vs Coffee Board, Bangalore); (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 124 (Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.); and 187 (2012) Delhi Law Times 25 (Shri Satya Narain Garg Vs. DCM Ltd. and Ors.). He submitted that the principle of mitigation of loss is a concept to be borne in mind while awarding damages. The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant's wrong, and, if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. He submitted that the self-serving statement of the plaintiff that he had not tried to get further job with his qualifications cannot be held as discharge of onus of proof of damages. So it is the submission of Mr. Majumdar that in a situation where the plaintiff had not discharged his onus to show mitigation of damages, the award of damages made by the Ld. Trial Court below was justified. The decree on damages equivalent to six months pay and other benefits which would have been earned by the plaintiff being basic salary, conveyance allowance and supplementary allowance was just and proper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 39 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Novartis India Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 December, 2008

Mr. Majumdar continued on the question of assessment of damages by elaborating on the principle of mitigation of damages. He relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 162 (M. Lachia Setty and Sons Ltd. Vs Coffee Board, Bangalore); (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 124 (Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.); and 187 (2012) Delhi Law Times 25 (Shri Satya Narain Garg Vs. DCM Ltd. and Ors.). He submitted that the principle of mitigation of loss is a concept to be borne in mind while awarding damages. The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant's wrong, and, if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. He submitted that the self-serving statement of the plaintiff that he had not tried to get further job with his qualifications cannot be held as discharge of onus of proof of damages. So it is the submission of Mr. Majumdar that in a situation where the plaintiff had not discharged his onus to show mitigation of damages, the award of damages made by the Ld. Trial Court below was justified. The decree on damages equivalent to six months pay and other benefits which would have been earned by the plaintiff being basic salary, conveyance allowance and supplementary allowance was just and proper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 135 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shri Satya Narain Garg Through His Legal ... vs Dcm Ltd. & Others on 5 December, 2011

Mr. Majumdar continued on the question of assessment of damages by elaborating on the principle of mitigation of damages. He relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 162 (M. Lachia Setty and Sons Ltd. Vs Coffee Board, Bangalore); (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 124 (Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.); and 187 (2012) Delhi Law Times 25 (Shri Satya Narain Garg Vs. DCM Ltd. and Ors.). He submitted that the principle of mitigation of loss is a concept to be borne in mind while awarding damages. The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant's wrong, and, if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. He submitted that the self-serving statement of the plaintiff that he had not tried to get further job with his qualifications cannot be held as discharge of onus of proof of damages. So it is the submission of Mr. Majumdar that in a situation where the plaintiff had not discharged his onus to show mitigation of damages, the award of damages made by the Ld. Trial Court below was justified. The decree on damages equivalent to six months pay and other benefits which would have been earned by the plaintiff being basic salary, conveyance allowance and supplementary allowance was just and proper.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 12 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 Next