Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
L.Rs. Of Om Prakash : Smt. Maya And Ors. vs Mahendra Pal And Ors. on 1 March, 1985
In the case of Legal Representatives of Om Prakash: Maya and others vs. Mahendra Pal and others 1989 ACJ 1114 the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court observed in Para 6 as under:-
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996
In terms of the principles laid down in judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit and another vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors., 1996 ACJ 581 as well as in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 about calculation of loss of income and dependency, even in an injury case the principle regarding consideration of future prospects cannot be ignored in such like matters for the injury is not temporary and it has caused virtually permanent disability to the extent of 60%.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
N. Sivammal And Ors. vs Managing Director, Pandian Roadways ... on 24 September, 1984
11. Further in the case of N. Sivammal and Others vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation and another (1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 18, a similar question arose before the Supreme Court and in Para `4' the question of mental agony suffered by the claimants was rejected but mental agony and pain suffered by the deceased was taken to be the loss to the estate of the deceased. Para `4' being relevant is being reproduced here:-
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
In terms of the principles laid down in judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit and another vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors., 1996 ACJ 581 as well as in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 about calculation of loss of income and dependency, even in an injury case the principle regarding consideration of future prospects cannot be ignored in such like matters for the injury is not temporary and it has caused virtually permanent disability to the extent of 60%.
Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan vs Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair on 29 November, 1985
8. It may further be mentioned that in Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, 1986 ACJ 440 referred to in Piraniya v. Makhan (supra) relating to case of defamation where the right to sue did not survive, but even in that case since the decree had been passed, it became a question of detrimental to the estate of the plaintiff-respondent which his legal representative was entitled to uphold and defend and was, therefore, entitled to be substituted in place of respondent-plaintiff.
Sampati Lal And Ors. vs Hari Singh And Ors. on 19 March, 1985
"6. .I have heard both the learned Counsel and have also perused the record. It is true that personal action dies with the person, this principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona has been recognised by the Indian courts also. But the exception is contained in section 306 of the Indian Succession Act which saves the action to the extent of loss to the estate of the deceased. This has been laid down by this court in Sampati Lal v. Hari Singh, 1985 ACJ 539 (Rajasthan). Therefore, the view taken by the learned Tribunal that all the actions pertaining to the person prior to his death die with the person is not correct. Thus, the contention of Mr. Parihar that except item Nos. (a) and (c) other claims mentioned in the claim petition can still survive and it can be still tried by the learned Tribunal, appears to be correct. Thus, I uphold the contention of Mr. Parihar and hold that the claims raised by the legal representatives of the deceased in the claim petition mentioned therein except item Nos., (a) and (c) can be tried by the learned Tribunal."