Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
Dr. Uday Khanolkar & Others vs John Mascarenhas & Others on 1 December, 2015 cites

Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs Trimbak Bapu Godbole And Anr on 2 May, 1968

21. Negligence as a tort is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The Apex Court in Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs. Trimbak B. Godbole, AIR 1969 SC 128 has held that a Doctor when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, namely:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 336 - J M Shelat - Full Document

C.I.T Mumbai vs M/S Sarkar Builders on 15 May, 2015

23. The third point raised by Shri. Ferreira, Lr. advocate of OP No. 5 is that sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the C.P. Act which enabled the legal representative of a deceased complainant to continue with the complaint was introduced by Act of 62/02 with effect from 15/3/2003 and the same has now been repealed by the Act No. 19 of 2015 as published on Gazette of India dated 14th May 2015 and therefore the legal representative of the complainant could not have continued with the complaint. Shri. Almeida, the lr. advocate of the Complainant, on the other hand, would submit that the repeal, if any, would be prospective and it would not affect the complaint being pursued by L.Rs in view of Section 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act, 1987. Lr. advocate has placed reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sarkar Builders, 2015 DGLS (Soft.) 426. We are inclined to accept the submission of Lr. Adv. Shri. Almeida. The repeal, if any, would be only prospective apart from the fact that it could also be prima facie said that sub-section (7) of Section 13 was brought about only by way of clarification and the complainant's L.Rs could have always continued with the complaint in case the cause of action survived.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 74 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next