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

1973 Supreme(MP) 119

A.P.SEN, G.G.SOHANI
Sushila Devi – Appellant
Versus
Ibrahim – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DANDVATE, G.M.Chafekar, P.N.MULEY,

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THESE appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, preferred by two sets of claimants, are directed against the decision of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal. Indore, rejecting their claim for compensation for the death of two of the passengers, Jinendra Kumar and Basantilal, arising from ,a motor accident.

( 2. ) THE material facts, shortly stated, are as follows:-On the 13th February, 1965, there was a ghastly accident on the mortakka Bridge over the Narbada resulting in the tragic death of eight persons. It is as very large bridge, having a length of 2600 ft. with twenty-four spans each of 108 ft. Motor bus No. MPB 1492, owned by respondent No. 1 Ibrahim and driven by deceased Lal Khan, was carrying eight passengers en route Ujjain-Onkare-shwar via Indore. The bus entered the bridge near about 11-30 A. M. , and after it had crossed as many as twenty-one spans of the bridge, the driver suddenly applied the brakes; but the bus went forward with a jerk, suddenly veered across the bridge to the off side, dashed against two or three railings, crashed through the railings, and fell down off the bridge from a height of about 50 ft. into the rocky bed of




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases listed explicitly state that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are references to dissenting opinions and contrary views (e.g., case Shakurmiya Imammiya Shaikh VS Minor Surendra Singh Rup Singh - 1976 0 Supreme(Guj) 137 mentions a dissent from the decision in Sushila Devi), but no direct indication that any case has been explicitly overruled or invalidated in subsequent treatment. Therefore, based solely on the provided data, no cases are definitively identified as bad law.

BALUBHAI HIRJI GAJJAR VS SURESHKUMAR NATHURAM - 1975 0 Supreme(MP) 102: Cites the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim (AIR 1974 Madh Pra 181) as a key authority.

Shakurmiya Imammiya Shaikh VS Minor Surendra Singh Rup Singh - 1976 0 Supreme(Guj) 137: Refers to the decision in Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim, noting a dissent from that decision.

Bhagwati Sen Gupta VS Gopalrao - 1977 0 Supreme(MP) 916: Cites Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim (ACJ 150) along with other cases, indicating its relevance as an authority.

AMARJIT INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - 1981 0 Supreme(Del) 181: Cites Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim (A.C.J. 150) as part of its reasoning.

KASHMIRAN MATHUR VS SARDAR RAJENDRASINGH - 1982 0 Supreme(MP) 517: Mentions reliance on Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim (ACJ 150) in support of legal arguments.

United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Natvarlal - 1988 0 Supreme(MP) 170: References both Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim and Rehana v. Abdul Majeed, indicating they are considered relevant precedents.

UNITED INDIA FIRE AND GEN. INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS NATWARLAL AND TWO - 1991 0 Supreme(MP) 290: Cites Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim (ACJ 150) as support for a legal contention.

Indra Sharma VS Chairman, RSEB Jaipur - 1998 0 Supreme(Raj) 183, Indra Sharma VS Chairman, RSEB Jaipur - 1998 0 Supreme(Raj) 186: Both refer to Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim (ACJ 150) in context of applying legal doctrines, showing continued citation.

A. Lakshmi VS Arjun Associated (P) Ltd. , Madras - 2004 0 Supreme(AP) 463: Mentions Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim (ACJ 150) as a case that took a particular view, implying it remains a relevant authority.

SHAKUNTIA GARG VS MEGH RAJ - 2000 0 Supreme(Del) 220: Cites the case as part of its legal reasoning.

Gobald Motor Service VS R. M. K. Veluswami - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 182: Discusses the legal principles in Sushila Devi v. Ibrahim regarding compensation, indicating its ongoing relevance.

Shakurmiya Imammiya Shaikh VS Minor Surendra Singh Rup Singh - 1976 0 Supreme(Guj) 137: Notes a dissent from the decision in Sushila Devi, suggesting some disagreement but not necessarily treatment as bad law.

KASHMIRAN MATHUR VS SARDAR RAJENDRASINGH - 1982 0 Supreme(MP) 517: Mentions a "contrary view" in Sushila Devi, indicating disagreement but not overruled status.

DY. GEN MANAGER K. S. R T. C. VS SAROJAMMA - 1981 0 Supreme(Kar) 4: References multiple cases including Sushila Devi, but the context suggests it is citing as authority rather than criticizing.

Sankaran VS Valliammal - 1987 0 Supreme(Mad) 199: Discusses cases citing Sushila Devi but does not indicate overruling.

PARVATI ALIAS BABY VS HOLLUR HALLAPPA - 1997 0 Supreme(Kar) 319: Mentions Sushila Devi in the context of legal reasoning but does not suggest overrule.

Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh VS Om Sharma - 1982 0 Supreme(P&H) 387: The treatment is somewhat ambiguous; it references reliance on Sushila Devi but does not clarify whether this reliance is upheld, questioned, or criticized.

STATE VS ASHADEVI - 1988 0 Supreme(MP) 102: Mentions application of doctrine in Sushila Devi but lacks explicit treatment indication.

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Subhagwanti: Munshi Lal: Kuldip Raj - 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 68: Cites legal responsibility principles but does not specify treatment of Sushila Devi.

BALUBHAI HIRJI GAJJAR VS SURESHKUMAR NATHURAM - 1975 0 Supreme(MP) 102, Shakurmiya Imammiya Shaikh VS Minor Surendra Singh Rup Singh - 1976 0 Supreme(Guj) 137, Bhagwati Sen Gupta VS Gopalrao - 1977 0 Supreme(MP) 916, AMARJIT INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - 1981 0 Supreme(Del) 181, KASHMIRAN MATHUR VS SARDAR RAJENDRASINGH - 1982 0 Supreme(MP) 517, United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Natvarlal - 1988 0 Supreme(MP) 170, UNITED INDIA FIRE AND GEN. INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS NATWARLAL AND TWO - 1991 0 Supreme(MP) 290, Indra Sharma VS Chairman, RSEB Jaipur - 1998 0 Supreme(Raj) 183, Indra Sharma VS Chairman, RSEB Jaipur - 1998 0 Supreme(Raj) 186, A. Lakshmi VS Arjun Associated (P) Ltd. , Madras - 2004 0 Supreme(AP) 463, SHAKUNTIA GARG VS MEGH RAJ - 2000 0 Supreme(Del) 220, Gobald Motor Service VS R. M. K. Veluswami - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 182: All these references indicate that Sushila Devi remains a frequently cited authority, but none explicitly state that the case has been overruled or disapproved.

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