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

2022 Supreme(SC) 925

B. R. GAVAI, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
Param Pal Sharda – Appellant
Versus
Dhani Ram – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Dev Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Mittal, AOR

ORDER :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 14th November 2019 passed in F.A.O. No. 1167 of 2010 and F.A.O. No.1168 of 2010.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under:

3.1 On 26th August 2007, Rajinder Pal Sharda, Param Pal Sharda (appellant No.1 herein), Nitin Sharda and one Harmail Singh were returning to Patiala from Ludhiana in a Hyundai Accent Car bearing No.PB-11-AE-9400, driven by Nitin Sharda. When they reached opposite to Harman Farm House Palace, Sirhind Road, Patiala, a Scorpio Car bearing No.PB-23-D-0109, driven by Harjinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein) came from the opposite direction in a zig-zag manner and dashed the aforesaid Hyundai Accent Car. Due to the impact, Rajinder Pal Sharda died on the spot. The remaining three, namely, Param Pal Sharda, Nitin Sharda and Harmail Singh were taken to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where Nitin Sharda and Harmail Singh succumbed to the injuries. A First Information Report No. 397 dated 2

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