Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.73 seconds)Section 8 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
26. Now, as regards conclusions No. (v) and (vi), it would be
apposite to extract paragraphs No.14, 15 and 21 along with table as
referred to in Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) which read thus:-
Jakir Hussein vs Sabir & Ors on 18 February, 2015
62. Now coming to challenge laid with respect to the rate of
interest, it would be noticed that the recent trend of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court clearly indicates that instead of awarding 7 or 8%,
as is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has
been awarding interest @ 9% per annum. Here I need only refer
to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme in Jakir Hussein Vs.
Sabir (2015) 7 SCC 252, wherein it was held:-
The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa, And Others on 2 July, 2014
"Perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari
v.Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh
2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), both three-Judge Bench decisions, a two -
Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166, thought it appropriate to refer the
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 23:17:25 :::HCHP
18
matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, and
that is how the matters have been placed before us."
Section 14 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Archna Devi on 12 May, 2004
21.
A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax versus Smt.Aruna Luthra (2001) 252
ITR 76 opined that a declaration by the Court is -This was the law, this is
the law. This is how the provisions have to be construed. The Court
merely declares the law and earlier decision by the Court is "simply no
law". It shall be apposite to extract the relevant observations which read
thus:-
Section 171 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010
24. The conflict between the judgments as extracted above was
resolved by concluding that the decision in Rajesh's case was not a
binding precedent as it has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari's case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the entire
conspectus of law arrived at the following conclusions:-
1