Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996
In fact in Trilok Chandra's case (supra), after reference to Second
Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It
was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be
invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held
to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25
years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the
lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is
the normal retirement age.
Mrs. Hafizun Begum vs Md. Ikram Heque And Ors on 24 July, 2007
10. An excerpt from the decision in Hafizun Begum v. Md.Ikram Heque and
others reported in 2007(4)CTC 335 would run thus:
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
In both General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, 1994(2)SCC 176, and U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation And others v. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996(4)SCC
362, the multiplier appears to have been adopted by this Court taking note of
the prevalent banking rate of interest.
The Managing Director, Tnstc Ltd vs K.I. Bindu And Ors on 5 October, 2005
9. An excerpt from the decision in the Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd., v.
K.I.Bindu & Others reported in 2005(2) TN MAC(SC) 350 would run thus:
Section 110B in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1