Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
8. Regarding awarding of interest, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the claimant/appellant is not entitled to any interest relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, and Atma Ram v. Ishwar Singh, , wherein it was held that no interest can be allowed on future expenditure and secondly, if the delay in disposal was not due to the respondents and when it is due to the delay by the Court. In this case, on the face of it, the appellant has not taken steps to expedite the matter and clearly the respondents were at no fault for the delay. However, in the nature of the case the claimant being quite young and being assisted by the guardian cannot be totally deprived of the interest, the rate of which cannot exceed 12 per cent per annum under the circumstances
Atma Ram Mittal vs Ishwar Singh Punla on 22 August, 1988
8. Regarding awarding of interest, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the claimant/appellant is not entitled to any interest relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, and Atma Ram v. Ishwar Singh, , wherein it was held that no interest can be allowed on future expenditure and secondly, if the delay in disposal was not due to the respondents and when it is due to the delay by the Court. In this case, on the face of it, the appellant has not taken steps to expedite the matter and clearly the respondents were at no fault for the delay. However, in the nature of the case the claimant being quite young and being assisted by the guardian cannot be totally deprived of the interest, the rate of which cannot exceed 12 per cent per annum under the circumstances
The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 92A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Bandela Ailaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Through Public ... on 7 October, 1994
Surprisingly, the Tribunal has also administered oath to P.W.3, who is a child witness, without following Section 118 of the Evidence Act who is not expected to be punished for 'perjury' for taking false oath. With such evidence, the Tribunal has drawn inferences against the witness. Furthermore, even P.W.2, who was aged 13 years at the relevant time, is a child within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-clause (h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and technically speaking, she was also entitled to the benefit of Section 118 of the Evidence Act. A girl aged upto 18 years is held to be a child by a Division Bench of this Court in Ailaiah v. State of A.P, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.) 519 (D.B.). (A.P.) (to which I am a member). Even in regard to her, the Tribunal was bound to follow the procedure contemplated Under Section 118 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, while appreciating the evidence the Tribunal fell into serious legal error to draw inference against P.Ws.2 and 3 under the circumstances.
Section 110A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
1