Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
22 The conflict between the judgments as extracted
above was resolved by concluding that the decision in Rajesh
versus Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) was not a binding
precedent as it had not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari versus Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253(SC). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the entire conspectus
of law arrived at the following conclusions:
"i) The twoJudge Bench in Santosh Devi, 2012 ACJ 1428
(SC), should have been well advised to refer the matter to a
larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what
has been stated in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), a
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:04:51 :::HCHP
...11...
The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pushpa, And Others on 2 July, 2014
"Perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari v.
Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) and Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), both threeJudge Bench
decisions, a twoJudge Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166, thought it
appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an
authoritative pronouncement, and that is how the matters
have been placed before us."
Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010
22 The conflict between the judgments as extracted
above was resolved by concluding that the decision in Rajesh
versus Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) was not a binding
precedent as it had not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari versus Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253(SC). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the entire conspectus
of law arrived at the following conclusions:
"i) The twoJudge Bench in Santosh Devi, 2012 ACJ 1428
(SC), should have been well advised to refer the matter to a
larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what
has been stated in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), a
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:04:51 :::HCHP
...11...
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
24 Now, as regards conclusions No. (v) and (vi), it would
be apposite to extract paragraphs No.14, 15 and 21 along with
table as referred to in Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:04:51 :::HCHP
...13...
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018
48 That apart, claimant No.4, being mother of the
deceased, would be held entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/
towards loss of filial as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case.
Pralhad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 15 September, 2010
43 The scope of the rule has repeatedly come up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but I need only
refer to the judgment rendered in Pralhad and others vs. State
of Maharashtra and another (2010) 10 SCC 458 wherein it
was held:
Banarsi And Ors vs Ram Phal on 17 February, 2003
the parties. This Court further held that such power is
unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject
.
Samundra Devi & Ors vs Narendra Kaur & Ors on 1 August, 2008
matter of the appeal or who has filed the appeal or
whether the appeal is being dismissed, allowed or
disposed of while modifying the judgments appealed
against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in
conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity
and inequality in granting reliefs and the overriding
consideration is achieving the ends of justice. The learned
Judges also held that the power can be exercised subject
to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised
to the prejudice of a person who is not a party before the
Court; secondly, this power cannot be exercised in favour
of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the
power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree
which has been permitted to become final by a party is
reversed to the advantage of that party. (See SCC p. 619,
para 15 : AIR para 15 at p. 1997). It has also been held by
this Court in Samundra Devi vs. Narendra Kaur (2008) 9
SCC 100 SCC (para 21), that this power under Order 41
Rule 33 CPC cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict.