Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that a falling tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw did not support Section 166 liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, but enhanced compensation under Article 142.
The Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 because it effects a complete vesting and dissolution of long-standing trust arrangements without demonstrated necessity, objective criteria, inquiry or proportionate means; further, its scheme permits deprivation of property without fair and non-confiscatory compensation in breach of Article 300A, and therefore the Act is unconstitutional and must be struck down with restoration of the trust to its pre-enactment legal position.
Source excerpt
Concurrent findings of the Tribunal and High Court that the appellants failed to prove involvement of the alleged offending vehicle were based on proper appreciation of evidence (material contradictions in witness testimony, improbability of alleged confessions, omission in complaint, spot mahazar prepared days later and MVI report showing no damage), and absent perversity or exceptional circumstances this Court will not interfere; consequently claims fail for want of cogent and reliable proof of the vehicle's involvement despite the occurrence being established.
Source excerpt
The NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding antenatal negligence which was not pleaded; successive Medical Boards/Committees (constituted at the complainant's instigation) did not find gross medical negligence; therefore findings of negligence and the orders awarding compensation cannot be sustained and the appeals must be allowed, setting aside the NCDRC and SCDRC orders.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in reducing the MACT award; the MACT's findings on 100% permanent disability and need for lifelong care were not controverted and warranted restoring and enhancing several heads of compensation. The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,283,866 under Section 166, with specified enhancements for future medical expenses, attendant charges and permanent disability, and unpaid amount to be paid within four weeks with interest at 7.5% per annum. Appeals allowed.
Source excerpt
For a minor permanently disabled in a motor-vehicle accident, loss of future earnings must be computed by adopting the State's minimum wages for a skilled worker as of the accident year; applying Gujarat skilled minimum wage for 2012 (Rs.227.85/day) the Court fixed monthly income at Rs.6,836, accepted permanent functional disability at 90%, recalculated compensation across heads and enhanced total award to Rs.35,90,489 with interest @9% p.a. from filing date, thereby modifying the awards of the Tribunal and the High Court.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's multiplier of 13 and the High Court's computation (final total award Rs.76,63,508), held that 9% interest from the date of filing to the date of disbursement is appropriate, and that awarding interest on future prospects is not illegal; accordingly the Special Leave Petitions were rejected.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that while a commission may compute compensation for delay and may consider that buyers took loans and paid interest, the interest charged by banks on such loans cannot, in their entirety, be saddled on the developer absent exceptional and strong reasons. The contractual remedy in the LOI — refund of the deposited amount with 8% compounded annual interest and a clarification of no other liability — sufficed as compensation; therefore the orders awarding bank loan interest against GMADA were set aside and the appeals were allowed to that extent.
Source excerpt
The High Court was correct to hold that the married daughter (Appellant No.1) failed to prove financial dependence on the deceased and therefore is only entitled to compensation under Section 140 as a legal representative; however the High Court erred in dismissing the mother's (Appellant No.2) claim because evidence showed she lived with and was solely dependent on the deceased, and on reassessment of all relevant factors the mother is entitled to Rs.19,22,356 as compensation.
Source excerpt
Refusal by the police officer to register the FIR combined with the use of very objectionable language towards the complainant's mother violated the individual's right to human dignity under Article 21 and falls within the definition of 'human rights' in Section 2(d) of the Human Rights Act, 1993; therefore the Commission's award of compensation was rightly upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
