Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (5.55 seconds)
Shanmugham vs The Managing Director on 17 June, 2006 cites

Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980

"8. Tribunals have been established for the prompt disposal of claim cases. The limitation for filing claim cases is six months. Fixed court-fee of Rs.10/- is required to be paid. Rule 17, Rajasthan Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, contemplates disposal of claim cases in one hearing. It has been observed in N.K.V.Bros.(P)Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC) at page 436, that the Tribunal should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. Section 11 0-C, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides that in holding enquiry under section 110-B of the Act, the Claims Tribunal would follow such summary procedure as it thought fit. While interpreting similar words used in section 11(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it has been observed in Grindlays Bank vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606 at page 608, para 7, as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 558 - A P Sen - Full Document

K. Gopalakrishnan Minor vs Sankara Narayanan And Ors. on 4 October, 1967

It has further been observed in para 8 that object of giving such wide power is to mitigate the rigour of the technicalities of the law and to achieve the object of the effective investigation and settlement of disputes. Strictly speaking, the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable before the Tribunal. Reference to K. Gopalakrishnan vs. Sankara Narayanan, 1969 ACJ 34 (Madras) and Pandit Ram Saroop vs. Balbir Singh, 1988 ACJ 500 (Delhi), may be made here. Thus the certified copy of the post-mortem report, paper No.C.17/2-3, has rightly been taken into consideration by the Tribunal without examining the doctor who prepared it."
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Pandit Ram Saroop And Anr. vs Balbir Singh And Ors. on 8 September, 1987

It has further been observed in para 8 that object of giving such wide power is to mitigate the rigour of the technicalities of the law and to achieve the object of the effective investigation and settlement of disputes. Strictly speaking, the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable before the Tribunal. Reference to K. Gopalakrishnan vs. Sankara Narayanan, 1969 ACJ 34 (Madras) and Pandit Ram Saroop vs. Balbir Singh, 1988 ACJ 500 (Delhi), may be made here. Thus the certified copy of the post-mortem report, paper No.C.17/2-3, has rightly been taken into consideration by the Tribunal without examining the doctor who prepared it."
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next