Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
N. Bhargavan Pillai (Dead) By Lrs.And ... vs State Of Kerala on 20 April, 2004
In the case of N. Bhargavan Pillai vs. State of Kerala (supra), a Bench of
the Supreme Court refused to follow an earlier decision of another Bench in the
case of Bore Gowda vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2000(10) SCC 260 on the
ground the said decision did not even indicate that Section 18 of the Probation
Act was taken note of and in view of the specific statutory bar, the view, if any,
expressed without analysing the statutory provision could not be treated as a
binding precedent and at the most, was to be considered as having been
rendered per incuriam. In our opinion, there is no scope of a counsel to contend
before a High Court that it should ignore the decision of a Supreme Court on the
ground that the relevant provisions of a Statute were not brought to the notice of
that Court.
Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda on 18 March, 2004
It is true that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act, as it stands, do
not permit, taking into consideration the age of the claimant, while assessing the
amount of compensation in such a proceeding but we cannot lose sight of the
provisions contained in Article 141 of the Constitution declaring that the law laid
down by the Supreme Court would be the law of the land binding upon all. Once
the Supreme Court specifically lays down that in case of a bachelor died of an
accident, while assessing compensation by way of the multiplier method, the age
of the claimant is also to be considered, such decision is binding upon all the
Courts and the Tribunals in this country. Therefore, the decisions of the Apex
Court relied upon by Mr K.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Insurance Company, applying the aforesaid principles to the proceedings under
Section 163A of the Act are binding upon us as precedent.
Ballabhadas Mathurdas Lakhani And Ors. vs Municipal Committee, Malkapur on 1 April, 1970
(See: Ballabhdas Mathurdas Lakhani and others vs. Municipal
Committee, Malkapur reported in AIR 1970 SC 1002, the last sentence of
paragraph 4 at page 1003).
Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002
In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Director of Settlements, A. P. and others, vs. M. R. Apparao and another reported
in AIR 2002 SC 1598, a Bench consisting of three Judges of the Supreme Court
made the following observations, which, in our opinion, would be the answer to
the contention of Mr Das:
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt. Pato Mondal vs The New India Assurance Company Limited ... on 3 April, 2008
In our view, the appellant having approached the Court under Section
163A of the Act there is no scope of considering such aspect. As pointed out in
the case of Pato Mondal (supra), the special features as mentioned in paragraph
31 of the said judgement could be taken into consideration only in a proceeding
under Section 166 of the Act where the applicant had ventured to take the
burden of proving the fact that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle the victim suffered and such position has been specifically indicated in
paragraph 32 of the said judgement.