Defendants have denied that the plaintiff is their brother or the son of their parents – High Court directed the plaintiff to undergo the DNA test — Respondent cannot compel the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in support of the defendants’ case – In any case, it is the burden on a litigating party to prove his case adducing evidence in support of his plea and the court should not compel the party to prove his case in the manner, suggested by the contesting party
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR — Appellant Vs. RAJ GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Death in accident – Driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance – Compensation – Appeal against Enhancement – It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the very car and PW–3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye–witness – In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report – High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHAMUNDESWARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…
Loss of dependency – Enhancement of compensation – Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income – Deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such vehicle on the day of accident – the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/ per month for the purpose of loss of dependency – By applying the multiplier of ’16’ the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDRA @ CHANDA @ CHANDRARAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MUKESH KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…
Evidence Act S 92 – Exclusion of evidence or oral agreement – The feigned ignorance about the nature of document cannot be said to be an instance of fraud. In the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, respondent is bound by the written document on which he admitted his signatures and of his wife. There is no oral evidence which could prove fraud, intimidation, illegality or failure of consideration to permit the respondents to lead oral evidence to dispute the sale deed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…
IN RE VIOLENCE IN LAKHIMPUR KHERI (UP) LEADING TO LOSS OF LIFE
1 ITEM NO.17 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PILW S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF…
HELD upper age limit as directory would be conferring unbridled power in the executive to choose persons of their choice by relaxing the age beyond 35 years. In such case, the provision would have to be declared as unconstitutional – High Court has correct in opinion that 35 years is the upper age limit for appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem (Recruitment of teachers in primary schools across the state of Jammu and Kashmir) scheme and cut-off date was not eligible for appointment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHAHEENA MASARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
(CPC) – Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Findings of fact – Second appeal – Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be – Findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence – Jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…
IMP : When a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed – Defendant cannot seek setting aside of an ex-parte decree – Orders passed by the High Court set aside and dismiss the application preferred by defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code – Appeal allowed. Counsel for Appearing Parties
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VISHWABANDHU — Appellant Vs. SRI KRISHNA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 25L and 25N – Termination – Held, Irrigation Department of state will not be an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25L – Labour Court as well the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court have not adverted to the question whether the Irrigation Department of the state is an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 25L – There is no finding recorded that the Irrigation Department of the state is doing manufacturing activity as provided in sub-clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act – Termination of the employment of the respondent was legal and valid – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SOMDUTT SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – Dismissal – Allegation of drunkenness – Its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act 1947 although is a wide one but it must be judiciously exercised – Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize or analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so – Award passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court under impugned judgment is not sustainable in law – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK — Appellant Vs. R.C. SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s).…