Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)

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 FAO No.274/2012 Page 7 of 10 object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v.Union of India :(2003)IILLJ735SC, B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd. : (2001)IILLJ1552SC , Transport Corporation of India v. ESI Corporation : (2000)ILLJ1SC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 78 - S V Patil - Full Document

Jameela & Ors vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2010

6. I am indeed perplexed at the findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal in the present case inasmuch as Railway Claims Tribunal would be every day dealing with the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443 and Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 527 which hold that even if a person is negligent yet compensation has to be awarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 158 - A Alam - Full Document
1