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

1994 Supreme(Kar) 178

R.RAMAKRISHNA
RADHAKRISHNA ESTATE, SIDDHAPUR, KODAGU DISTRICT – Appellant
Versus
MARY – Respondent


Advocates:
Ajit Gunjal, K.S.GAURISHANKAR

R. RAMAKRISHNA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the act' ). Notice was ordered for the respondent and she is represented.

( 2 ) BY taking consent of the learned advocates, the appeal is heard on its merits and the following order is passed.

( 3 ) AN important question that requires determination in this appeal is: "whether the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona is applicable to claims arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?"

( 4 ) FOR proper appreciation of this question the brief facts of the case presented is as follows: one doreswamy who claimed to be a workman in the estate owned by the appellant has filed an application under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, kodagu for the employment injury said to have been sustained on 21-2-1983 when he was employed by the appellant. When this application was pending the said doreswamy died a natural death. The respondent who is the wife of late doreswamy has continued proceedings on behalf of her husband which ultimately culminated in an award. The commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,720



















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