Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.08 seconds)
Mukesh Rani & Ors. vs Union Of India on 3 January, 2017 cites

B.D. Shetty And Others vs M/S. Ceat Ltd. And Another on 30 October, 2001

11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers", the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 482] (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 193 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 131] (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. [(2000) 1 SCC 332 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 121]
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 78 - S V Patil - Full Document

Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008

In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, 2008 ACJ 1895 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced FAO 378/2009 Page 2 of 6 hereunder:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 894 - M Katju - Full Document

Alembic Chemical Works Co., Ltd vs The Workmen on 15 December, 1960

In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1961 SC 647] (AIR para 7), Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority[(1984) 4 SCC 356 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 753 : AIR 1984 SC 1842] FAO 378/2009 Page 3 of 6 (AIR para 11), Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. [(1981) 2 SCC 238 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 316 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 103 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003

11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers", the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 482] (SCC para 9), B.D. Shetty v. Ceat Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 193 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 131] (SCC para 12) and Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. [(2000) 1 SCC 332 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 121]
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 344 - S V Patil - Full Document
1