Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: railway claims tribunal act 1987 chapter 1 preliminary Page 89 of about 86,448 results (1.519 seconds)

M. Krishnamurthy S/O Muniraju Vs. Krishnamurthy S/O Late Muninarsappa ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2008KAR4447; 2009(3)KarLJ591; 2008(3)KCCRSN185; 2008(4)AIRKarR233

..... to entertain a suit does not excluded the jurisdiction of the high court to issue high prerogative writs against illegal exercise of authority by administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals. the finality which may be declared by the statute qua certain liability either by express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court or by clear implication does ..... jurisdiction is, therefore, a nullity. its continuance would lead to public injury, in that, if really the plaintiff does not belong to the caste to which he claimed to belong, the right that has accrued to him by virtue of the order impugned would enable him to compete for and get a job which was exclusively reserved ..... 27.11.2005 passed by the lok adalal is totally illegal and in violation of the provisions contained iii sections 19 and 20 of the legal services authority act, 1987 ('act' for short). learned senior counsel contended that, the award made by the lok adalat or the decree drawn dated 27.11.2005 as contrary to the provisions .....

Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Anantha Reddy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1998(5)ALD285; 1998(4)ALT698; 1998CriLJ4279a

..... supreme court under articles 226, 227 and 32 of the constitution, were held to be unconstitutional and as a necessary corollary, section 28 of the administrative tribunals act, was held to be unconstitutional. it was held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the high courts under articles 226 and 227 and upon the supreme court ..... in service matters was taken out of the purview of the high court in view of section 28 of the administrative tribunals act, contempt jurisdiction, relating to service matters was entrusted to the tribunal and as the supreme court has struck down the said provision and also its genesis contained in the constitutional provision-article ..... deal with, the service matters by way of judicial review/judicial superintendence, ipso facto, the contempt jurisdiction of the tribunal has ceased to have effect and that section 17 of the administrive tribunals act had become otiose and inoperative and that contempt power can now only be exercised by the high court under article 215 .....

In Re: Mr. Hayles, Editor of The Mail and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1955Mad1; 1955CriLJ1

..... , but that proceedings under and limited by the statute became statutory proceedings in the court of arches.'62. such a claim cannot be made in the present case. the proceedings before the industrial tribunal did not become either under the industrial disputes act, 1947, or under any other statute, proceedings before the high court of madras.63. in -- 'queen v. lefroy', (1873) 8 ..... ceased to exist and no person can claim to represent such tribunal. 3. since the special industrial tribunal does not exist, no individual can claim to represent it or take action on its behalf. 4. an industrial tribunal, whether special or otherwise only derives its powers under statute -- the industrial disputes act, 1947. the powers of an industrial tribunal to deal with contempt is provided for in .....

British India Steels Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prof. Suresh Chandra Kuchhal an ...

Court : Kolkata

..... tribunal to adjudicate this kind of a question. section 19 clothes the tribunal with the power to decide an application before it like a suit ..... debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 says that the recovery officer will make recovery of the debts. there is no provision in the chapter relating to recovery for adjudication of this kind of a claim. section 30 of the act provides for an appeal against the order of the recovery officer to the tribunal. 14. i find some power in the .....

Tata International Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Trisuns Chemical Industry Ltd., Ku ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR88; 2002(2)MhLj242

..... court of original jurisdiction insofar as present award is concerned. expression court came up for consideration before me in r. j. shah and co. v. konkan railway corporation ltd. by judgment dated 31st july, 2001. on the consideration of the expression district court and principal civil court, it has been held that it would ..... the arbitration. the subject matter of the arbitration would include contracts. the subject matter of an award cannot include a contract as adjudication in respect of the claims under the contract has been done and has resulted into an award. the subject matter of the award therefore, is liable to be construed to mean ..... ordinary original civil jurisdiction, one has to refer to the amended letters patent. in my opinion, therefore, the judgment in harishankar firstly was under the arbitration act, 1940 but secondly did not consider the provisions of section 120of the code of civil procedure. that judgment therefore, will have no binding effect warranting reference of .....

Roshan Lal and anr. Vs. Uoi

Court : Delhi

..... to see the judgment?2. to be referred to reporter or not? yes3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? yes1. the railway claims tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the dependents of the deceased found dead on a platform though was a bona fide passenger for the reason that ..... on behalf of the appellant to show as to how it is the case of untoward incident which may fasten a liability upon the respondent railways.2. the relevant observations made by the railway claims tribunal while deciding issue no. 3 & 4 are reproduced hereunder: on the other hand, the circumstances arising out of the case would diffuse such ..... occur on account of any untoward incident under section 124-a of the act.3. the tribunal in the aforesaid circumstances dismissed the claim petition.4. the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of language of section 124 (a) of the railways act 1989 even in the circumstances as has been arisen out of the incident .....

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Aleykutty Devasia and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : I(1998)ACC124; 1998ACJ1195; AIR1997Ker321

..... balakrishnan, j.1. this is an appeal preferred by the union of india against the award passed by the railway claims tribunal, ernakulam bench in o.a. 3/96. the respondents are the legal heirs of one celinamma. celinamma was employed in bombay. she was a native of manimalain ..... he was found guilty by the sessions court. the present respondents filed claim petition before the tribunal and the appellant herein contended that the incident did not come within the purview of section 124 and 124a of the railways act and therefore the application was liable to be dismissed. the tribunal passed an award for rs. 2,00,000/- rejecting the contentions ..... where celinamma died of violent attack while she was trevelling in a train. the act committed by the assailant amounts to untoward incident as defined under the railways act and the claimants are certainly entitled to get compensation under section 124a of the act.the tribunal was justified in passing the award and the appeal is without any merit and it .....

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Goyal

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : I(2002)ACC497; II(2002)ACC290; 2002ACJ497; 2001(1)WLC601

..... v.t. has filed the present civil misc. appeal against the order dated 6-8-1999 passed by the railway claims tribunal, jaipur by which order the tribunal, jaipur by which order the tribunal had awarded an amount of rs. 18,000/ as compensation.2. on 23-6-1998 the respondent claimant smt. kamlesh goyal aged about 30 ..... aloss of rs. 12,000/-. she has claimed the said amount along with interest under the provisions of the railways act.3. it was the objection of the present appellant that no such claim application could be preferred or was maintainable under the railways act. the parties had fed their evidence. the tribunal had framed as many as five issues and ..... ultimately vide impugned order had come to a finding that the claimant was entitled to the total amount of rs. 18,000/-for the proved loss of her gold chain.4. the tribunal .....

United Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Lakshmi Shori ...

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

..... court, before the amendment act of 1956, or by way of an application in a claims tribunal, after the said amendment. it also makes no difference whether the insurer entered in appearance and filed his written statement after a notice ..... the insurance company could defend an action only on the grounds specified in section 96 (2) of the act and not on other grounds unless it had obtained leave of the claims tribunal under section 110-c (2-a) of the act. the mere non-filing of the appeal by the insured, however, was not considered enough for allowing the ..... is not entitled to raise any defence other than the defences enlisted in section 96 (2) of the motor vehicles act 1939. it cannot, therefore, be permitted to dispute the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal. it makes no difference whether the proceedings for the recovery of compensation were by way of a suit is a civil .....

United Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Shori Ganjoo an ...

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : [1984]55CompCas251(NULL)

..... court, before the amendment act of 1956, or by way of an application in a claims tribunal, after the said amendment. it also makes no difference whether the insurer entered appearance and filed his written statement after a notice was ..... that the insurance company could defend an action only on the grounds specified in section 96(2) of the act and not on other grounds unless it had obtained leave of the claims tribunal under section 110c(2a) of the act. the mere non-filing of the appeal by the insured, however, was not considered enough for allowing the ..... is not entitled to raise any defence other than the defences enlisted in section 96(2) of the motor vehicles act, 1939. it cannot, therefore, be permitted to dispute the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal. it makes no difference whether the proceedings for the recovery of compensation were by way of a suit in a civil .....