Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)

Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 28 August, 1986

"A reading of the table in Sarla Verma leaves no room for any speculation that it is only when the deceased/injured completes the age of 51 years, the multiplier would shift from '13' to '11' and not when the deceased/injured attains the age of 50 years and runs the said age till the previous night of his 51st birthday. (Read the interpretation given by the Honourable Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs. State of Rajasthan and others [(1986) 4 SCC 59] on the Indian Majority Act, 1875 and this Court in Jaison V.George vs. State of Kerala [2019 (5) KHC 115] on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005, while computing the age of a person). In other words, the sine qua non to select the multiplier is the attainment of the specified age mentioned in the table and not the running of the age into the next group. It is also apposite to note, in Pranay Sethi, the age for awarding future prospects is segregated into three groups i.e., 16 ‒ 39, 40 ‒ 49 and 50 ‒
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 154 - A P Sen - Full Document

Smt Shashikala vs Gangalakshmamma on 15 July, 2013

This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the question of law stands settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Sashikala (supra). On a plain reading of the decision the Division Bench of this Court it is clear that the 2024:KER:80595 MACA 3206/2021 23 Bench had gone against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the respectful view of this Court, it is bound to apply the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not otherwise. It is settled law that in so far as the law binding precedents is concerned, as enshrined under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, decision rendered by the Apex Court will be the law of the land and the High Court is certainly bound by the same.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 417 - Full Document
1   2 Next