Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.18 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 306 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 1A in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
Legal Representatives' Suits Act, 1855
New India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Misra, Adult on 10 October, 1975
56. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in N.I. Insurance Company v. Shanti Misra . A reading of the judgment would show that their Lordships were only concerned with Ss. 110-A and 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the said two sections only dealt with the procedural law and not with the substantive law relating to compensation. In our view that judgment was concerned with the question as to the forum before which a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act should be adjudicated and was confined to two sections viz., S.110-A and 110-F and is therefore clearly distinguishable.
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another vs R. M. K. Veluswami & Others on 14 April, 1961
The deduction procedure is accepted by our Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service Limited v. R.M.K. Veluswamy where Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) observed:
P.B. Kader And Ors. vs Thatchamma And Ors. on 25 March, 1969
55. For the reason given above, we respectfully dissent from the judgments of the following High Courts viz., Delhi High Court in Dewan Hari Chand v. Delhi Municipality, AIR 1981 Delhi 71, the kerala High Court in P.B. Kader v. Thatchamma the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Budha v. Union of India, and the Madras High Court in Perumal v. Elluswamy Reddiar (1974 1 Mad LJ 292 = 1974 Acc CJ 82.
Section 4 in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
Megjibhai Khimji Vira And Anr. vs Chaturbhai Taljabhai And Ors. on 14 February, 1977
54. The liberal view permitting apportionment of the dependency between all the legal representatives of the deceased - without being restricted to the persons enumerated under the Fatal Accidents Act - taken by us has also been taken by a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court consisting of Chinnappa Reddy, M.R. Sharma and Harbanslal, JJ. In Jokhiram v. Naresh Kantha, , Damayant Devi v. Sita Devi, 1972 ACCC.J. 334 (Punj & Har) and by a Division Bench of the karnatka High Court in K.S.R.T. Corporation v. Peerappa, , by the Madras High Court in Mohd. Habibullah v. Seethammal, , the Himachal Pradesh High Court in State v. Dole Ram, and the Gujaat High Court in Megjibhai v. Chaturbhai, .