Raghubar Rai And Ors. vs Jaij Rai And Ors. on 21 March, 1912
Judges. That case is a clear authority for the proposition, that consequential damage arising, from the breach gives no new cause of action. The claim
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 592 (0.66 seconds)Raghubar Rai And Ors. vs Jaij Raj And Anr. And Musammat Chuna on 21 March, 1912
Judges. That case is a clear authority for the proposition that consequential damage arising from the breach gives no new cause of action. The claim
Shanti Swaroop Agarwal vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 12 September, 2003
Tort is breach of legal duty to take care, which results in damage undesired by defendant to the plaintiff. Thus there are three ingredients ... scope of duty; (ii) Breach of that duty; (iii) Consequential damage to 'B'.
11. It has been further stated by Win-field that
Kunwar Unkar Singh And Anr. vs Kashi Prasad on 24 February, 1933
noted however that the determination of the question, whether consequential damage that results to a vendor,. who has himself to pay the amount that
Babulal And Anr. vs State on 21 May, 1951
damage is done to the property. Such a damage may be occasioned by fire or by any other means. Therefore, the damage to any property ... afford the real basis for the assessment of damage. The damage to the property and the consequential loss to the owner are, therefore, co-related
Bishambhar Nath vs Janki Ballabh Tripathi And Ors. on 13 October, 1950
reason of come existing cause likely to intervene so as to occasion damage to a third person."
16. The Privy Council decision in Ramanathan ... cause of the wrongful seizure of the goods and the consequential damage.
18. The view expressed in Mankalal Nihal Chana's case
The N.I.A.C.L. And Another vs M/S Siddharth Associate And Another on 29 January, 2018
caused to the vehicle, caused accidentally and not for consequential loss. The fact that accidental damage was caused to the insured vehicle has not been ... part of damage was allowed by the petitioner. The part of damage, which is being denied is not a consequential damage but an accidental damage
Dr. Meera Malik vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 29 May, 2017
complainant;
II) breach of the said duty; and
III) consequential damage.
9. Damage is a necessary ingredient for negligence. Once it is found that there
Dr. Mrs.Renu Jain vs Smt. Savitri Devi & Another on 5 October, 2010
duty; (2) breach of the said duty; and (3) consequential damage. Cause of action for negligence arises only when damage occurs; for, damage
Tika Ram vs Sobha Ram on 5 April, 1935
form it purports to be merely an action for the consequential damage arising from the loss of service, resulting from the act complained of. Hence