Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Shailendra Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2022 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Smt. Shyama Malhotra And Anr. on 7 September, 2007

8. Similarly Delhi High Court in the case of Shyama Malhotra & another (supra), has referred two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Dass and others Vs. Kuldip Singh, AIR 1971 Delhi 151 and has held that word 'dependent' is not restricted to mere financially dependency but comprehensive enough to include persons who are dependent on the landlord.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - S Khanna - Full Document

Prashant Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 4 September, 2013

6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that as per definition of 'Family' provided in Fundamental Rule-9 and the note appended thereto, if income of father or mother from all sources including pension (inclusive temporary increase/relief in pension and pension equivalent to death-cum- retirement gratuity benefits) does not exceed Rs.1275/- per month as substituted vide notification dated 01/05/2000 w.e.f.06/09/1999, then only such parents will be deemed to be wholly dependent upon the government servant. Placing reliance on such provisions, it is submitted that pension of mother of petitioner along with DA etc on the date of operation was more than Rs.10,000/- per months besides earning from interest on gratuity, leave encashment, GPF etc. taking it to over Rs.20,000/- per month, therefore, she was not dependent on the petitioner by any stretch of imagination, hence, judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Ojha and another (supra) and thereafter Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Singh Baghel (supra) have limited application to the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be dependent on the petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kumar Ram Krishna vs College Of Vocational Studies & Ors. on 28 August, 2017

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and also taking note of the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of Kumar Ram Krishna Vs. College of Vocational Studies and others, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10133 so also the law laid down by Delhi High Court in Union of India and others Vs. Shyama Malhotra and another, 2007 (98 DRJ 367 (D B ), Bombay High Court in the case of Purple Castle Vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on April 3, 2013 (W.P. No.8898/2012, so also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P.Ojha and another (supra), the ratio which is curled out is that monthly pension of Rs.5200/- so too 4 small to warrant an inference that mother was dependent on her husband for treatment of a serious ailment like heart disease. Having regard to the provisions contained in Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Section 4(1), petition was allowed and respondents were directed to settle the dues.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - V K Rao - Full Document
1