Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)The Railways Act, 1989
The Manager M/S Icici Lombarado And ... vs G Varalakshmi W/O Late H P Gopalakrishna on 7 December, 2009
In fact, under similar circumstances, this Court in the case of The Union of India owning Southern Railway by its General Manager, Chennai v. G.Jayalakshmi and others, 2012 (3) CTC 741, while considering an identical issue, has held as follows:-
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 174 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Union Of India Owning vs The Addl. Registrar on 11 July, 2012
"19. As per the above decisions, the burden lies upon the Railway Authorities to prove that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger. Now this Court has to decide whether the Respondent/Railway Administration has proved that the deceased is not a bonafide passenger. Perusal of Ex.A.2-inquest report reveals that nothing has been seized from the body of the deceased Rajan. It is pertinent to note that there is no contra evidence on the part of the respondent. This Court has already discarded Ex.R.1-attendance Register, since it is not a genuine document. It is not the case of the respondent that the belongings of the deceased has been recovered, except the ticket and pass. Hence the decision of this Court rendered on 13.8.2012 in CMA.No. 1685 of 2009 (The Union of India V. The Addl. Registrar, Railway Claims and another), is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case."
Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008
In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, (2008) 4 MLJ 323 (SC), wherein the Apex Court, while interpreting the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers which is an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and the consequential payment of compensation under Section 124A for such untoward incident, has held that it is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has further held as follows:-
Alembic Chemical Works Co., Ltd vs The Workmen on 15 December, 1960
In other words, beneficial or welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation vide Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen AIR 1961 SC 647( para 7),Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority AIR 1984 SC 1842 (para 11), Lalappa Lingappa and others vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 (para 13), S. M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom Distt. Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27(para 12) etc.
The Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... vs Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 20 November, 1970
In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2014 ACJ 2505 [Unionof India v. Lakshmi and others] wherein, in paragraph No.6, the Karnataka High Court held as follows:-