Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and it is only when this burden is discharged that the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under section 106 of the evidence act to establish that he was not guilty. in sucha singh v. state of punjab [sucha singh v. state of punjab, (2001) 4 scc375:2001. scc (cri) ..... and it is within the domain of the accused to prove with his special knowledge as to the defense that is put forth by the accused contemplated under section 106 of indian evidence act, 1872. in address to the same, we would refer to the decision of the hon ble apex court in jaikam khan v. state of u.p ..... draw a different inference. similarly, in vikramjit singh v. state of punjab [vikramjit singh v. state of punjab, (2006) 12 scc306: (2007) 1 scc (cri) 732]. this court reiterated : (scc p. 313, para14) 14. section 106 of the evidence act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. only when the prosecution case has been proved .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and it is only when this burden is discharged that the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under section 106 of the evidence act to establish that he was not guilty. in sucha singh v. state of punjab [sucha singh v. state of punjab, (2001) 4 scc375:2001. scc (cri) ..... and it is within the domain of the accused to prove with his special knowledge as to the defense that is put forth by the accused contemplated under section 106 of indian evidence act, 1872. in address to the same, we would refer to the decision of the hon ble apex court in jaikam khan v. state of u.p ..... draw a different inference. similarly, in vikramjit singh v. state of punjab [vikramjit singh v. state of punjab, (2006) 12 scc306: (2007) 1 scc (cri) 732]. this court reiterated : (scc p. 313, para14) 14. section 106 of the evidence act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. only when the prosecution case has been proved .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... to dissolve the mpeb in consonance with the orders/directions dated 12.04.2001, 04.12.2001 and 23.05.2003 passed by the union of india under section 58(4) of mpr act. in addition, the plaintiff-state of m.p. has also prayed for to direct the union of india by way of mandatory injunction to perform its constitutional and ..... wide power and unfettered discretion on the court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings. (iv) rajesh kumar aggarwal v. k.k. modi [(2006) 4 scc 385], at paras 15 and 16: (scc pp. 392-93) 15. the object of the rule is that the courts should try the merits of the case that ..... (civ) 922], at para 13: (scc p.722) 13. mr bharuka, on the other hand, invited our attention to another decision of this court in baldev singh v. manohar singh [(2006) 6 scc 498]. in para 17 of the decision, it was held and observed as follows: (scc pp.504-05) 17. before we part with this order, we may also .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... shows the income of the deceased only at `110/- per day, the only contention of the appellant that the claim petition was not maintainable under section 163-a of m.v.act is not accepted.15. barring this, the appellant neither has taken any other grounds nor addressed arguments on any other grounds, which requires to be ..... 000/- p.m. apart from agricultural income of `2,00,000/- per year. if the averments are accepted by the courts, then the petition under section 163-a of m.v.act is not maintainable.5. in his support, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon two reported judgments. the first judgment is, bangalore metro transport corporation ..... sharabai and another vs p.sahebkhan and mfa no.20596/2009 (mv) :9. : others reported in 2006 acj229 wherein regarding the question of maintainability of a claim application under section 163-a r/w ii schedule of m.v.act, this court regarding the contention that the claimants in their claim application had alleged that the deceased was an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... same having been heard and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, this day, dr h.b.prabhakara sastry j, pronounced the following: judgment this appeal is filed under section 173(1) of the motor vehicles act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the principal senior civil judge and motor accident claims tribunal, belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal for short), by ..... 5(1) of haryana compassionate assistance to the dependants of the deceased government employees rules, 2006. thus, the result of harmonious interpretation of another applicable law like haryana rules, 2006 and m.v. act is that compensation payable under motor vehicle act must exclude the amount received under haryana rules, 2006 under head loss of pay and allowances . with great respect, it is submitted that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... his personal expenses and also erred in considering the age of the mother of the deceased even :7. : though the claim petition is filed under section 163a of the motor vehicles act and without considering the schedule attached to it. therefore, he sought for modification of the judgment and award passed by the district and sessions judge ..... 14. therefore, the impugned judgment and award calls for interference in the appeal.16. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 163-a and second schedule of the motor vehicles act, 1988 in the case of national insurance co. ltd., vs. gurumallamma and anr., reported in (2009) 16 scc page 43 has held ..... and applied the multiplier of 14 considering the age of the :10. : mother of the deceased which is contrary to the provisions of section 163a and contrary to second schedule of the motor vehicles act, 1988. in view of the reasons stated above, the question raised in the present appeal has to be answered in negative holding that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... , (2019) 12 scc398: air2017sc5710 , wherein it was held that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer and/or to understand section 163-a of the act as contemplating such a situation, would be inconsistent with the legislative object behind introduction of this provision, which is final compensation within a limited time frame on ..... in absence of the driver, owner and the insurance company of another vehicle involved in an accident and whose driver was solely negligent, the application under section 163a of the act would be maintainable against the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle which was driven by the deceased himself, firstly on the ground that the ..... and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to rs.5 lakh. the same cannot be accepted. in the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and award was passed by the learned tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the high .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... , (2019) 12 scc398: air2017sc5710 , wherein it was held that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer and/or to understand section 163-a of the act as contemplating such a situation, would be inconsistent with the legislative object behind introduction of this provision, which is final compensation within a limited time frame on ..... in absence of the driver, owner and the insurance company of another vehicle involved in an accident and whose driver was solely negligent, the application under section 163a of the act would be maintainable against the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle which was driven by the deceased himself, firstly on the ground that the ..... and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to rs.5 lakh. the same cannot be accepted. in the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and award was passed by the learned tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the high .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... , (2019) 12 scc398: air2017sc5710 , wherein it was held that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer and/or to understand section 163-a of the act as contemplating such a situation, would be inconsistent with the legislative object behind introduction of this provision, which is final compensation within a limited time frame on ..... in absence of the driver, owner and the insurance company of another vehicle involved in an accident and whose driver was solely negligent, the application under section 163a of the act would be maintainable against the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle which was driven by the deceased himself, firstly on the ground that the ..... and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to rs.5 lakh. the same cannot be accepted. in the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and award was passed by the learned tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the high .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication of notification under section 4(1) of the act, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell ..... , hcgp) - 2 - nc:2024. khc-d:2217 mfa no.103033 of 2015 this miscellaneous first appeal is filed under section541) of land acquisition act, against the judgement and award dated1802.2006, passed in lac no.288/2005 on the file of the senior civil judge, saundatti, partly allowing the reference petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of ..... the following: judgment claimants who lost the land for construction of a tank are appellants challenging the judgment and award passed by the reference court dated 18.02.2006 in lac no.288/2005.2. facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:2. 1. respondents acquired land belonging .....
Tag this Judgment!