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

2001 Supreme(J&K) 339

S.K.GUPTA, H.K.SEMA
Gian Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ram Krishan Kohli – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: Surinder Singh

PER S.K. GUPTA, JUDGE:

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Surinder Singh.

2. By means of this reference, the learned Single Judge, instead of formulating a question of law in terms of Rule 18 -of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules, (now Rule 33 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999), for authoritative pronouncement to a Division Bench, reflected the matter in the penultimate para of the reference dated: 19-05-1995, which reads as under:-

In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that every case where several legal representatives claim compensation, it should be incumbent upon the Tribunal to decide the claim of each claimant separately. In this case, the Tribunal has only decided the entitlement of parents of the deceased, and he has not at all decided the claim of sisters and brother of the deceased. Since this question will govern many cases and the decision in this case will of much public importance, I think it just and proper to refer this matter for authoritative pronouncement to a Division Bench of this Court in terms of Rule 18 of the J&K High Court Rules. The file be placed before Lord Chief Justice for const












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