SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 1536

K.T.THOMAS, S.N.VARIAVA
Roshan Deen – Appellant
Versus
Preeti Lal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. If the Judgment of the High Court, now under attack, is termed as wrong and untenable it is only a euphemistic characterisation. It really amounted to crippling the cause of justice of a crippled man. The powers of writ jurisdiction of the High Courts are basically intended to salvage causes of justice, but the High Court, in this case, has exercised such powers for over-turning justice which a lower authority had granted to a devastatingly disabled person.

3. Roshan Deen, a young man of 25, made a claim on the respondent (who was running a Flour Mill-cum-Sugarcane Factory) for a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs on the following factual averments : The claimant (present appellant) was a workman of the respondent s industrial establishment, on a monthly salary of Rs. 1500/-. On an ill-fated day in his life (4.3.1995) he was operating a machine of the Mill, but in a sudden tweak he got himself snapped in the shaft of a column and was crushed by the fast rotating machine and was ruinously injured. His neck, hands, legs etc. suffered multiple injuries including fractures. He was rushed to a private hospital and from there, to the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top