Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
H.P. Pyarejan vs Dasappa(Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors on 6 February, 2006
In H.P.Pyarejan V. Dasappa (dead) by L.Rs. and others 1 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Panchugopal Barua & Ors vs Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors on 12 February, 1997
Interference with the finding of fact by the High Court is
not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence (see
Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997) 4 SCC
Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors on 7 May, 1997
713) and Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar
Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438)......"
Motukuri Bheemavva And Ors. vs A.P.S.E.B. Through Its Chairman And ... on 12 September, 1997
"14.4 Dealing with the principle enshrined in the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur and the contention that the initial onus of proof is on
the Defendants and that the defence is untenable given the
principle of strict liability, it is necessary to refer to the decision of
this Court in Motukuri Bheemavvas case (supra).
Ramesh Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 March, 1994
In Ramesh Kumar Nayak v. Union of India 3 , the Apex Court
considered the meaning of negligence and held that negligence means failure
to exercise the required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent
driver.
Smt. Shail Kumari vs M.P. Electricity Board And Anr. on 17 July, 2001
In Shail Kumari vs. M.P. Electricity Board5, the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh observed thus:
M.P. Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors on 12 January, 2002
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari6
held that the facts of that case are akin to those of this case. That was a case
where the deceased was riding a bicycle at night and returning from his
5
2001 LawSuit (MP) 329
6
(2002) 2 SCC 162: A.I.R. 2002 SC 551
9
factory. There had been rain, and the road was partially inundated with water.
The cyclist did not notice the live wire on the road, and hence, he rode the
vehicle over the wire, which twitched and snatched him, and he was
instantaneously electrocuted. The main defence raised by the Defendant was
that the wire in question had been used by somebody to siphon energy for his
use and said the act was done clandestinely behind the back of the Electricity
Board. The line got unfastened from the hook, and it fell on the road over
which the cycle driven by the deceased slid, resulting in instantaneous
electrocution. In those facts, the Supreme Court held as follows:
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many
subsequent decisions in England, and decisions of the apex Court
are legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 SC 1480 and a
Division Bench in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. V.
RamanbhaiPrabhatbhai, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1690, had followed the
principle in Rylands (supra) with approval.