The Honble Supreme Court held that that strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases. In other words, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.
Supreme Court in JCIT v. M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited held that the term tax under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should also include cess.
The Honble Supreme Court have considered disability as permanent and have enhanced compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 as the disability report showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58% of the limb, which corresponds with 26% whole body. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature. The disablement has incapacitated the appellant from doing the work which she was capable of doing.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act on basis of filial and parental consortium.
SC held that it was not permissible to initiate proceedings under Section 147/148 pending proceedings under Section 154
The Honble Supreme Court while enhancing the compensation in the case of permanent disability caused to accident, held that while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants.
The Honble Supreme Court while allowing appeal held that merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the employee when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the finality.
The Honble Supreme Court held that in the event of Slum Sale, the appellant would not be liable for any tax obligations before the date on which Agreement was executed as the appellant was neither a dealer nor a manufacturer before the date of execution of Agreement.
The Honble Supreme Court while decreasing the awarded compensation under Land Acquisition Act, held that the compensation determined on the basis of the Notification 5 years later, cannot be a yardstick for determining the compensation for the land which is acquired five years before and therefore, the claimants shall not be entitled to the same compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 5 years from the date of acquisition.
The Honble Supreme Court directed Insurance Company to process the complainants insurance claim and remit the payable sum as all formalities on behalf of deceased was completed. Further, a complete malafide intention was deciphered out from the sequence of events through which Insurance Company was trying to deny all benefits.
