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

1996 Supreme(Guj) 284

ANIL R.DAVE, N.J.PANDYA
O. N. G. C. , Mehsana Project – Appellant
Versus
Vinakapur @ Vinodkumari – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.PANDEY, J.D.AJMERA, MEHUL SHARAD SHAH, P.K.JANIKIRAN, RAVI R.TRIPATHI

N. J. PANDYA, J.

( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing when on earlier occasion, Civil Application No. 5996/96 in this First Appeal was filed for getting some amount released in favour of the claimants-respondents.

( 2 ) THE appellant ONGC is strenuously contending that the widow of the deceased vinakapur @ Vinakumari having been employed with the Corporation because of untimely death of her husband, she cannot claim any dependency benefits nor can she come out with a case that she was dependent on her husbands income and, therefore, she should be awarded compensation under the Law of Torts.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, firstly it may be noted that the Corporation has not come out with a detailed contention in this regard in its written statement. May be because of the fact that her appointment followed the said unfortunate incident and by that time written statement is filed. Assuming that this plea is taken in the written statement and supporting material sought to be produced by way of additional evidence by filing civil Application in this Court were also there before the Trial Court, the question will remain as to whether benefit thus derived by one









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