Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Mohamed Zahir S/O Mohamed Nazir Siddiqi vs Shaikhali Abdulla And Ors. on 9 February, 1979 cites

Shakuntala Shridhar Shetty vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 1974

Shakuntala Shridhar Shetty v. The State of Maharashtra, 78 Bom.L.R. 106, to submit that looking to the location of the accident, Shaikhali, the driver of the lorry, was under an obligation to anticipate that a vehicle like the tempo would enter at the Junction of the two roads and that he had the last chance of avoiding the accident because in his evidence Shaikhali has admitted that he had seen the tempo from a near distance and as such Shaikhali should have been in a position to avoid the accident. As the accident had occured, the learned Counsel submits, the only inevitable inference is that it was due to the negligence of the lorry driver.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977

5. As far as the law is concerned, the matter is no more res integra. It is settled by the high authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, , where the Supreme Court ruled that the liability would not arise unless a person contravenes any of the duties imposed on him by common law or by the statute and in the case of a motor accident, the owner is only liable for negligence. Proof of negligence is, therefore, necessary before the owner or the Insurance Company could be held to be liable for the payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case. In view of this high authority, it is not necessary to consider the decisions at length on which Mr. Hattangadi heavily relies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 525 - P S Kailasam - Full Document
1