Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Kumari Kiran Thr. Her Father ... vs Sajjan Singh & Ors on 11 September, 2014
19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-3
in S.B.CMA No. 2667/2017 submitted that the submission made
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance
company with respect to the income of the deceased-3 is devoid
of any merit as the deceased-3 was engaged in construction
business also and was deriving income from it. He further
(Downloaded on 26/10/2024 at 11:18:47 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42011] (15 of 33) [CMA-2666/2017]
submitted that the learned tribunal has erred in not considering
the income of the deceased-3 from other sources i.e., Rs.46,540/-
while assessing the income of the deceased-3 as after his death
there has been loss of this income and also the learned tribunal
has not given any reason for not considering this part of the
income despite the fact that it was included in the ITR(Ex.8) for
the Assessment Year 2013-14 and also mentioned in Ex.10, which
is the Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 dated 08.01.2014. He further challenged the quantum of
compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium and
loss of estate. He also challenged the interest as awarded by the
learned tribunal and prayed for interest @9% and for this
submission he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, (2015) 1 SCC
539 (para 21).
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 14 February, 2019
Further, this court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC, (2020) 13 SCC 486, while
dealing with a similar factual matrix, has observed that:
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 134 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 187 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Smt Shashikala vs Gangalakshmamma on 15 July, 2013
However, this court, in light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shashikala v.
Gangalakshmamma, (2015) 9 SCC 150 is of the view that the
applicable multiplier should be of 16 as the deceased had not
completed the age of 36 years as on the date of his death.