Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008
15.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that without
considering the facts and circumstances as well as the principles laid down
by various Courts as stated above and the evidence, in a proper and
perspective manner, but misconstruing the provisions of law, the Tribunal
erred in shifting the burden of proof on the Applicants and consequently,
erred in not granting compensation to the Applicants, by dismissing the
application, by the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court.
The Manager M/S Icici Lombarado And ... vs G Varalakshmi W/O Late H P Gopalakrishna on 7 December, 2009
In this case, as stated
above, since the factum of untoward incident is established to have occurred
in the Railway Premises and the investigation report also revealed that the
untoward incident occurred due to the train accident, the burden of proof is on
the Railways to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger,
as has been held in the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court
6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1495 of 2017
dated, 09.05.2018, made in Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2015, 2012 3 CTC
741 (General Manager, Chennai Vs. G.Jayalakshmi and others) and
2017 5 MLJ 543 (S.Kannadasan and Another vs. Union of India), but in
this case, the Railways failed to discharge such a burden by valid evidence.
S.Kannadasan vs The Union Of India on 24 May, 2017
In this case, as stated
above, since the factum of untoward incident is established to have occurred
in the Railway Premises and the investigation report also revealed that the
untoward incident occurred due to the train accident, the burden of proof is on
the Railways to establish that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger,
as has been held in the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court
6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1495 of 2017
dated, 09.05.2018, made in Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2015, 2012 3 CTC
741 (General Manager, Chennai Vs. G.Jayalakshmi and others) and
2017 5 MLJ 543 (S.Kannadasan and Another vs. Union of India), but in
this case, the Railways failed to discharge such a burden by valid evidence.
Section 23 in The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 123 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi), Secunderabad vs B. Koddekar And Anr. on 7 June, 2002
Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in
2008 4 MLJ 323 SC (Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar), AIR
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1495 of 2017
2010 SC 3705 (Jamila Vs. Union of India), AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh
23 (Union of India Vs. Baburao Koddekar) and judgement of the
Honourable Supreme Court dated 09.05.2018, made in Civil Appeal
No.4945 of 2018.
Jamila Khatun @ Mustt Jamila vs Union Of India . on 13 May, 2016
Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in
2008 4 MLJ 323 SC (Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar), AIR
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1495 of 2017
2010 SC 3705 (Jamila Vs. Union of India), AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh
23 (Union of India Vs. Baburao Koddekar) and judgement of the
Honourable Supreme Court dated 09.05.2018, made in Civil Appeal
No.4945 of 2018.
1