Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian railway companies act 1895 Sorted by: old Court: orissa Page 67 of about 662 results (3.607 seconds)

Nov 11 2014 (HC)

Sujit Ku. Dhir Vs. R.T.O. Keonjhar

Court : Orissa

..... no.in conformity with law. accordingly, the petitioners should no.be encouraged to avail the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court bypassing the statutory remedy available under the act and rules.23. in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in view of the law discussed above, the writ petitions are disposed of observing that the ..... , (2007) 2 scc 112. 14 22. considering the above principles, the law laid down by the apex court and looking into the provisions contained in act and rules framed thereunder, this court is of the view that while adequate remedy is available under the statute, the petitioners having approached this court invoking the extraordinary ..... the same should be strictly adhered to. therefore, if the mechanism is available under the statute for just and proper adjudication of the case under the act and the rules, and the taxing statute requires strict construction and also application thereof, this court should no.entertain these writ petitions on the ground of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2014 (HC)

Sukei Kuanr and Others Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Wesco Ltd.Burl ...

Court : Orissa

..... hon ble apex court referred to hereinabove, and under the provisions contained at rule 91 & 92 of the indian electricity rules, 1956 it is no.to be considered as to whether there is any negligence on the part of the electric supply company or not. (8) from the pleadings as narrated herein above, there is no dispute that the deceased ..... strictly nonfeasance and no.malfeasance. it is omission to do what the law requires, or failure to do anything in a manner prescribed by law. it is the act which can be treated as negligence without any proof as to the surrounding circumstances, because it is in violation of statute or ordinance or is contrary to dictates of ordinary ..... ordinary prudence would require to be exercised .in the case of donoghue v stevens [1932].ac 562, lord atkin stated that; 'you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour'. this is the establishment of a general duty of care. 7 no.coming to kno. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //