Bivash Chandra Debnath @ Patal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. in ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. deceased aged 43 years at time of accident and was hawker. multiplier of 10 and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. would be appropriate and not multiplier of 15 and interest rate @ 9% p.a. fixed by high court. compensation was determined at rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. order1. leave granted.2. these appeals are directed against an order passed by the division bench of the calcutta high court on 9th june, 2008 in cra. no. 235 of 1994, canceling the bail granted to the appellants during the pendency of the appeal. the only ground on which the bail was cancelled is that on 9th june, 2008, the appellants went unrepresented. no other ground has been given for cancelling the bail.3. in our view, this order of the division bench of the high court cannot be sustained since on the date in question, the names of the learned counsel representing the appellants had not been indicated in the cause list. furthermore, there is also no reason given for cancellation of the bail. accordingly, the said order is set aside, the order granting bail to the appellants on 26th september, 1994, is restored.4. the appeals are disposed of.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against an order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 9th June, 2008 in CRA. No. 235 of 1994, canceling the bail granted to the appellants during the pendency of the appeal. The only ground on which the bail was cancelled is that on 9th June, 2008, the appellants went unrepresented. No other ground has been given for cancelling the bail.

3. In our view, this order of the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained since on the date in question, the names of the learned Counsel representing the appellants had not been indicated in the cause list. Furthermore, there is also no reason given for cancellation of the bail. Accordingly, the said order is set aside, the order granting bail to the appellants on 26th September, 1994, is restored.

4. The appeals are disposed of.