Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-08-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ1189
V.B. Gupta, J.1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of the above two appeals filed by the Appellant-Insurance company.2. These two appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as 'Act') against the impugned judgment dated 12th September, 2007 passed by the Dr. T.R. Naval, Judge, MACT (for short as 'Tribunal').3. Brief facts of this case are that on 18th July, 2004 at 1.20 P.M., deceased Mukesh Jain, was driving his two wheeler scooter No. DAI-1835 on which his son namely Master Shashank Jain was pillion rider. When they reached near SDM office, Geeta Colony, Delhi, all of a sudden the offending motorcycle bearing No. DL-7S-G-3282 being driven by its driver respondent Jatin Singh, in a very rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn, tried to overtake the scooter of the deceased and in that process struck against the scooter of the deceased with a great force due to which the deceased and his son were thrown on the road. The decease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Dec-10-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. For my part, I would have been content to dismiss these appeals for the reasons given by Carnwath LJ in his lucid and convincing judgment. But since your Lordships are minded in one respect to differ from his analysis, I must explain why on this point I regretfully feel obliged to dissent. For this purpose, I gratefully adopt the recital of the facts and statutory provisions in the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, which I have had the advantage of reading in draft. 2. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 provided in section 9 that the price payable for the house should be the amount which, on certain specified assumptions, it would be expected to realise if sold on the open market. The open market means everyone who could reasonably be expected to be interested in buying. Among these potential purchasers there will sometimes be one or more to whom the property would be worth more than to others. In IRC v Clay [1914]...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Dec-10-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I would allow the appeals in Knowsley Housing Trust v White and Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association, but dismiss the appeal in Honeygan-Green v Islington London Borough Council. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 2. I have had the privilege of reading in draft the magisterial opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I am in full agreement with it, and for the reasons that Lord Neuberger gives I would dispose of these three appeals as he proposes. 3. I venture to add one brief footnote, and I do so largely as a matter of respect for Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who gave the leading speech in this House in Burrows v Brent London Borough Council [1996] 1 WLR 1448. Lord Browne-Wilkinson did not, as I read the authorities, invent the rather unfortunate phrase “tole...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Dec-10-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. The State of Missouri alleges that on 13 February 1997 the appellant Ralston Wellington committed two murders in Kansas City. According to the evidence submitted on behalf of the prosecutor, the appellant was a Jamaican drug dealer carrying on a substantial business in Jamaica, the United States and the United Kingdom. While he was staying with a woman in Kansas City, a member of her family took about US$70,000 from his room. The appellant made the woman drive him and two other Jamaicans to the house where the thief had been staying. They entered with guns firing, killed two of the occupants (one of them a pregnant young woman) and injured another. The victims do not appear to have been concerned in the theft and the money was afterwards returned by the thief. 2. The appellant is charged with murder in the first degree, defined in section 565.020 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri as knowingly causing the death of another person after deliberation upon the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Dec-10-2008
LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions on this appeal of my noble and learned friends Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Baroness Hale of Richmond and am in full agreement that, for the reasons they give, this appeal should be dismissed. There are two matters, however, on which I want to add a few words of my own. In doing so I gratefully adopt and need not repeat Baroness Hale’s outline of the facts and of the relevant legislative background to the issues. 2. The first matter on which I want to comment is the locus standi of the respondent, the adult daughter of Mrs Savage, the deceased, to have instituted the action that has led to this appeal. Following Mrs Savage’s self-inflicted death, an inquest was held into the causes and circumstances of her death. The inquest was held in public, the investigation by the coroner into the circumstances and causes of the death was a full one - no one has suggested that it was in any re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Dec-10-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would dismiss these appeals. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. On 10 January 2003 Shaun Riley was working in the course of his employment with the first appellant, Chargot Ltd, at Heskin Hall Farm, near Chorley in Lancashire. Extensive works were being carried out on the farm, which was owned by the Ruttle Group of companies. The second appellant, Ruttle Contracting Ltd, a member of the group, was the principal contractor. The third appellant, George Henry Ruttle, was a director of the first appellant. He was also the second appellant’s managing director. The works included the construction of a car park. This required the excavation from the site of a quantity of topsoil. A dumper truck was then used to move the spoil over a distance of about 500 yards to a depression in a field, beside whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-11-2008
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT129
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The above four petitions give rise to a common question about the jurisdiction of Civil Court and are being disposed of jointly by this common order. The learned ADJ where the petitioners filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act observed in his order dated 16.10.2006 that in view of the provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint. The petitioners aggrieved by the order have preferred these Civil Revisions under Section 115 CPC.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are that the petitioners are member of Defendant Society (respondent No. 3 herein). This Society purchased 44 acres of land in Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli from various landholders viz. respondents No. 4-7. The society developed this land into a housing and cultural center. Residential plots were demarcated, boundary walls were erected, roads, sewerages, culverts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The legality and/or validity of the show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer, Kolkata Port Trust, under Sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. In fact, legality of very initiation of the said eviction proceeding has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Estate Officer has not applied his judicious mind in forming his opinion that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupier of the public premises.2. Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contended that since formation of such opinion is a condition precedent for initiation of such a proceeding by a quasi judicial authority, the very initiation of such proceeding can be nipped in the bud if judicious mind is not properly applied by the Estate Officer in the process of formation of such opinion.3. By relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1732
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders Annex.P-2 dated 22.06.1990, Annex.P-5 dated 10.01.2005 and Annex.P-6 dated 28.02.2005 and a direction to the respondents to grant him disability pension w.e.f. 25.07.1989 when he was invalided out from service.2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case which are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner was recruited in Indian Navy on 04.02.1985 after thorough medical examination by the Medical authorities of the Navy, he was found medically fit in medical category 'AYE' and at the time of his recruitment he was not suffering from any disease or disability. On being medically examined by the medical authorities of the Navy at the time of recruitment, his vision was 6/6 of both the eyes. The petitioner while in service and performing the Naval duties, suffered Retinitis Pegmentosa and was exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC944; 2009CriLJ7872; 2008(16)SCALE158; 2009AIRSCW1; 2008(6)LHSC4417
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14.5.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 1981 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.1981 passed by Sri R.K. Mishra, III Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 1980 holding that the appellant was guilty for commission of offences under Sections 148, 452 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, 18 months and life imprisonment respectively, was dismissed.2. Appellant was prosecuted in respect of commission of offences, the incident whereof took place on or about 15.8.1979 at about 9.30 p.m. in the house of one Mewa Ram. Janamashtami festival was being celebrated on that night. Dinesh Kumar and Girish Kumar, the sons of the informant Mewa Ram, Smt. Ramlali, his wife, so...
Tag this Judgment!