Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
Sanjay Chaudhary vs Smt.Dhara Bai & Ors. on 11 January, 2018 cites

Manoj Kumar Shrivastava vs Arvind Kumar Choubey And Ors. on 8 April, 2000

23. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed of reliance on Manoj Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Arvind Kumar Choubey reported as 2002(1) MPLJ 172, rt in which it is held that, “suit for damages against ou Administrator of Municipal Corporation for C demolition of plaintiff's Hotel without authority and h without serving proper notice to plaintiff- ig Appellant/Administrator cannot be said to have acted H in his personal capacity shorn of his status as Administrator – Statutory notice under Section 401(2) should have been mandatorily given to appellant/Administrator by respondent/plaintiff- Suit filed without notice was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed”.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jitendra Kumar Yadav vs Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance ... on 28 August, 2017

24. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Yadav Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another reported as 2010(10) SCC 341, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sikander Singh reported as (2006) 3 SCC 736 and M/s. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as AIR 1965 SC 1039, the facts of these present cases are completely different, therefore, the above citations do not attract in the present case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd vs Sikander Singh on 24 February, 2006

24. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Yadav Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another reported as 2010(10) SCC 341, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sikander Singh reported as (2006) 3 SCC 736 and M/s. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as AIR 1965 SC 1039, the facts of these present cases are completely different, therefore, the above citations do not attract in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 62 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 September, 1964

24. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Yadav Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another reported as 2010(10) SCC 341, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sikander Singh reported as (2006) 3 SCC 736 and M/s. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as AIR 1965 SC 1039, the facts of these present cases are completely different, therefore, the above citations do not attract in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 58 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & Ors on 17 January, 1997

In the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation Vs. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & others reported sh as (1997) 9 SCC 552, in which the appellant e contend that the action of the appellants in good faith ad in exercise within the limit of the discretion, Pr therefore, the principal of law and negligence does not apply. In this regard, the Apex Court has held a that, Negligence is failure to use such care as a hy reasonable, prudent and careful person would use, ad under similar circumstances. It is the doing of some act which a person of ordinary prudence would not M have done under similar circumstances or failure to of do what a person of ordinary prudence would have done under similar circumstances. Negligence also is rt an omission to do something which a reasonable man, ou guided by those ordinary considerations which C ordinarily regulate human affairs would do, or the h doing of something which a reasonable and prudent ig man would not do. Negligence would include both H acts and omissions involving unreasonable risk of having done harm to another. The breach of duty must cause damage. How much of damage to be compensated by the defendant should be attributed to his willful conduct and how much to his willful negligence or careless conduct or remissness in performance of duty, are all relevant facts to be considered in a given act or omission in adjudging duty of care. The element of carelessness or the breach of duty and whether that duty is towards the plaintiff or a class of persons to which the plaintiff belongs are important components in tort of negligence. Negligence would therefore, mean careless conduct in commission or omission of an act, whereby another to whom the plaintiff owned duty of care has suffered damage. The duty of care is crucial in understanding the nature and scope of tort of negligence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 55 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1