Back
2004(1) Supreme 284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. -Petitioner
versus
Manjit Kaur & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 176 of 2004 CC 5520/2003
Decided on 5-1-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocate (NP).
JUDGMENT
By V.N. Khare, CJI and S.B. Sinha, J.-This Special Leave Petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 12/12/2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder it affirmed the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar in Case No. 119 of 8.12.2000. The question raised in the Special Leave Petition is as to whether in view of the finding of the learned Tribunal that the driver of the Maruti Car was not holding a driving licence and particularly when he happened to be the owner of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment.
2. Keeping in view of the fact that both the Tribunal and the High Court had recorded that the Petitioner would be entitled to realise the amount of compensation as assessed from the driver of the offending vehicle, we do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, particularly, having regard to our decision in SLP (Civil) No. 9027 of 2003, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. we do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.
The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
****************
00024
00025
00026
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
