Search Results for "Rashness and Negligence"

328 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 328 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Rash Driving Causing Death and Injuries in Hit-and-Run Case. Revision Petitioner's Conviction Under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC and Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 MV Act Confirmed as Evidence of Rashness and Negligence Was Clear.

The revision petitioner, Mr. Vimanjan Hanumanta Devarkonda, was the original accused in a criminal case arising from a road accident that occurred on ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case Due to Negligence of Truck Driver Established by Evidence. The Court set aside the Tribunal's finding of no negligence and remanded for fresh consideration.

The appellant, Mrs. Agustha D' Souza Cardozo, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, seeking compensation for in...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal of Accused in Rash Driving Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Overtaking — State Fails to Prove Negligence in Head-On Collision Between Two Mini Buses Under Sections 279, 337 IPC.

The State of Goa appealed against the acquittal of the accused, Mohandas S. Gawade, who was charged under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 337 (causing...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Goa Acquits Appellant in Rash Driving Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Rashness or Negligence. Conviction under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Motor Vehicles Act set aside as prosecution failed to prove that the accused drove in a rash or negligent manner causing death.

The appellant, Sagar Lolienkar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, for offences under Sections 279 (rash driving) and ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction but Reduces Sentence in Rash and Negligent Driving Case. Conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC Maintained While Substantive Imprisonment Reduced to Period Already Served Based on Mitigating Circumstances Including Compensation Payment and Family Situation.

The Supreme Court considered a criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code a...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case Due to Erroneous Appreciation of Evidence. Negligence of Driver Established Through Oral Testimony and Site Inspection Report, Entitling Claimant to Compensation Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The appellant, Laximan Vithoba Gaunkar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000...