Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Mohd Hasnain & Ors. vs Jagram Meena & Ors. on 24 March, 2014
15 I have gone through the judgments cited by both the sides. It transpires
from Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors., that a bunch of appeals were
disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court after discussing various judicial
pronouncements holding the field. To quote the Hon'ble High Court in its own
words :
Moreover, subsequent to the introduction of Section 163A and the Second
Schedule of the Act, the Apex Court in Trilok Chandra, introduced a structural change
by increasing the numerical value of multiplier from '16'to'18', whereas it had been
fixed at '16' as per Susamma Thomas. Specifically, there was no variation in respect of
Suit No.102/14/13 Ishwar Singh Vs. Suraj Prakash Page No. 7/11
fundamental premise of 'multiplier method' as held in Susamma Thomas. In Trilok
Chandra, the apex court has taken the second schedule as a guiding factor.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. ... vs Vimla Devi & Ors. on 28 May, 2014
Ld. Counsel for R3 on the other hand
submits that the age of the mother is to be taken into consideration and has relied
upon Royal Sundram Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimla Devi & Ors. MAC App
1192/2012 decided on 28.05.2014.
1