Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.69 seconds)
Bhupendra Kumar (Dar) vs Sandeep Singh (188/21, Nfc) on 18 February, 2026 cites

Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2021

In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e-mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 1363 - J R Midha - Full Document

Parmeshwari vs Amir Chand & Ors on 28 January, 2011

9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1371 - Full Document

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Smt.Kamlesh & Ors. on 11 November, 2008

11. It may further be noted that in Cholamandalam Insurance Company vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1540 - V B Gupta - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

14. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

14. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

14. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Rajkumar Sahu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh 61 ... on 24 October, 2018

15.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 15.6. Observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. is quoted hereunder:
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 99 - P S Koshy - Full Document
1   2 Next