Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Khenyei VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...
2015 5 Supreme 429 : The legal documents confirm that in cases of composite negligence, the liability of joint tortfeasors is inherently joint and several. The court is not required to specifically mention ''''joint and several liability'''' because this principle is automatically applicable under the law. The claimant has the right to recover the entire compensation from any one of the joint tortfeasors, regardless of the extent of their individual fault. This right arises by operation of law, and the court''''s role is not to apportion compensation between tortfeasors for the benefit of the claimant, but only to determine inter-se liability when all tortfeasors are before the court. Thus, while the term ''''joint and several'''' may be used in judgments, its absence does not invalidate the underlying legal principle, which is binding by precedent and statutory interpretation.Checking relevance for Income Tax Officer, Agra VS Radha Krishan...
Checking relevance for State of Kerala VS Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 213 : The court held that it is not necessary for the consortium agreement to specifically use the phrase ''''joint and several liability'''' if the agreement clearly establishes joint and several responsibility, as demonstrated by the consortium agreement dated 11.3.2008, which stated that members were ''''jointly and severally responsible'''' for every stage of project implementation. The court emphasized that the use of ''''responsibility'''' instead of ''''liability'''' did not invalidate the agreement, especially since the Project Advisor/Sponsor had previously used the terms interchangeably, treated the defect as curable, and the final liability would be governed by the licence agreement, which would include the required clause. Therefore, the specific mention of ''''joint and several liability'''' is not mandatory if the substance of joint and several responsibility is clearly established.Checking relevance for Kamlesh VS Attar Singh...
2015 0 Supreme(SC) 1027 : The legal documents do not require the court to specifically mention that the liability is joint and several. The principle of joint and several liability arises automatically in cases of composite negligence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in AIR 2015 SC 2261. The court''''s finding that both drivers are guilty of composite negligence implies joint and several liability, and the law permits the claimant to recover the entire compensation from either or both tortfeasors. The documents emphasize that apportionment of liability between joint tortfeasors is not permissible in favor of the plaintiff, and the determination of inter se liability is only for the purpose of recovery between the tortfeasors after payment to the claimant. Therefore, while the court may explicitly state the nature of liability, it is not mandatory for the court to do so, as the legal consequence of joint and several liability follows from the finding of composite negligence.Checking relevance for AC Chokshi Share Broker Private Limited VS Jatin Pratap Desai...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 299 : The arbitral tribunal found both respondents jointly and severally liable for the debit balance in the wife''''s account, which was upheld by the court. The court affirmed that the findings of the arbitral tribunal were reasonable and supported by evidence, confirming joint and several liability without requiring a specific mention of the nature of liability beyond what was already established in the award.Checking relevance for Pawan Kumar VS Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal...
2014 1 Supreme 401 : Yes, it is necessary for the court to specifically mention that the liability is joint and several. In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not correct in apportioning liability between the drivers/owners of the two vehicles, and therefore modified the order to explicitly state that the drivers/owners of both vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Court emphasized that it is open to the claimants to enforce the award against both or any of them, which confirms that the judicial declaration of joint and several liability is essential for the claimants to have the full legal right to pursue recovery from either or both tortfeasors.
