Dismissed

Bombay Electric Supply and Transport v. Shri.Pradeep Gyanchandra Dubey

Bombay HC5 Oct 2023FA/147/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 13.5 lakh compensation. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly attributed negligence to the bus driver and found no evidence of contributory negligence by the respondent, dismissing the appellant's challenge regarding income and disability proof.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; compensation of Rs. 13,50,073/- with interest at 8% awarded to the respondent; file transferred to Tribunal.

Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Vs Shri.Pradeep… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:29598

¶2

FA-147-2019.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.147 OF 2019

¶5

Bombay Electric Supply and )
Transport Undertaking,)
Electric House, Colaba,)
Mumbai 400005)… APPELLANT

¶6

Vs.

¶7

MR. PRADEEP GYANCHANDRA DUBEY ) Room No.51, Raghunath Chawl, ) Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Opp. Ram Gopal Industries ) Dr. R.P. Road, Mulund (West) ) Mumbai 400080 ) … RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Bhavesh Wadhwani a/w. Mr.Aavish Shetty i/by M.V.Kini & Co.,
Advocate for the Appellant.

¶9

Mr.T.J.Mendon a/w. T.R.Kale, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM:ABHAY AHUJA, J.
RESERVED ON:19st AUGUST 2023
PRONOUNCED ON:5th OCTOBER, 2023

¶11

JUDGMENT:

¶12

1. This Appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the “M.V. Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated 25^th

¶13

July, 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai in

¶14

Motor Accident Claim Application No.772 of 2013 partly allowing the

¶15

AVK

¶16

1 of 20

¶17

FA-147-2019.doc

¶18

Application of the Respondent and awarding a sum of Rs. 13,50,073/-
towards total compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum.

¶19

2. Attempts were made by the parties to settle the matter before the Lok Adalat but since there was no final outcome of the settlement, the matter was once again listed for final hearing at the stage of admission.

¶20

3.The brief facts are as follows. That on 14th November, 2012, the
Respondent who was then aged about 28 years, a self-employed person
conducting a pan shop from 9:00 pm till late hours of the night, after
closing his pan shop was returning home at about 1:00 a.m. on a motor
cycle ridden by him, moving from R.H.B. Road, Mulund towards Sanjay
Gandhi Nagar and was going along Kalidas Road to go to M.G. Road and
had reached beside Chanakya Society, Devidayal Road, when a BEST bus
bearing Registration No. MH-01-AP-0694 (the “Offending Vehicle”) came
from LBS road side and gave a dash to the Respondent's motorcycle. The
Respondent fell down along with motor cycle on the road and sustained
fracture injuries to his person. The Respondent was treated in Raj Hospital
as an indoor patient from 14.11.2012 to 12.12.2012.

¶21

AVK

¶22

2 of 20

¶23

FA-147-2019.doc

¶24

4.The Respondent then preferred an application on 29.04.2013
claiming Rs.25,00,000/- from the BEST being the employer of the driver
along with costs of medical treatment, pain and suffering caused by the
accident and interest inter alia on the grounds that he did not recover well
from the accidental injuries, and is facing difficulties to continue his
business.

¶25

5.The Appellant vide its Written Statement filed before the Tribunal
denied the claim. The Appellant claimed that the BEST bus was being
driven in a proper manner and was going from Vashi to Mulund Bus Depot
and that when the bus reached near Mulund station, the Appellant while
riding his motorcycle tried to cross the bus from Kalidas road towards MG
road at an extremely fast speed in rash and negligent manner and while
doing so collided against the left side front portion of the BEST bus. The
Appellant claimed that it was due to the Respondent's own negligence that
he met with an accident and there was no negligence on the part of the
bus driver. The Appellant denied the personal particulars of the
Respondent as well as his claim for alleged disability and medical
expenses as well as damages claimed on account of other expenses under
the respective heads. The Appellant prayed for dismissal of the
Respondent's application with costs.

¶26

AVK

¶27

3 of 20

¶28

FA-147-2019.doc

¶29

6.The Tribunal examined the FIR, spot panchnama and chargesheet
and the evidence being the examination of the Appellant with respect to
the issue of negligence. The Tribunal observed that in view of death of the
bus driver before he could be examined, it is only the version of the
applicant and police papers that are available on record to determine the
aspect of negligent driving of the BEST bus. After examining the above,
the Tribunal held that it did not appear that the Appellant was attempting
to cross the bus to go to the other side of the road. The Tribunal also
noted that it was in the FIR that the BEST driver did not provide any
assistance to the Appellant after the accident nor did he report the
accident to the police, rather he fled from the spot to avoid any liability.
The Tribunal concluded that the BEST driver was at fault and responsible
for the accident.

¶30

7.On the issue of loss of income due to functional disability, the
Tribunal, based on available evidence, estimated that the Respondent had
an earning of Rs.9000/- per month. The Tribunal also concluded that the
Respondent had suffered 45% loss of income due to functional disability
and in the same manner, 45% functional disability had to be considered to
determine the loss of future income to the Respondent.

¶31

AVK

¶32

4 of 20

¶33

FA-147-2019.doc

¶34

8.With respect to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal after
taking into account hospital and medical expenses, rest period, special
diet, conveyance, services rendered by relatives, pain and suffering,
disability and loss of amenities in life and considering of loss of future
earnings in the ratio of 45% functional disability and after applying a
multiplier of 17, awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,50,073/-
(inclusive of No Fault Liability (NFL)) with interest @ 8% from the date of
application till realisation.

¶35

9.Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Impugned Judgment and
Award allowing the Application of the Respondent by awarding a sum of
Rs. 13,50,073/- towards total compensation along with interest at the
rate of 8%, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal as mentioned above.

¶36

10.The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that while awarding
compensation, the Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that the
Respondent was driving the motorcycle in high speed despite the traffic
being moderate coupled with the fact that the Respondent did not give the
particulars of the helmet which amounted to contributory negligence on
the part of the Respondent.

¶37

AVK

¶38

5 of 20

¶39

FA-147-2019.doc

¶40

11.The Appellant further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider
the fact that the Respondent had failed to establish his profession and
monthly income and physical disability. The Appellant relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar1 to submit that Dr. Mukhi cannot be said to be the treating doctor
because in the absence of continuous papers it was difficult to believe that
Dr. Mukhi was still treating the Respondent for injuries when his evidence
was recorded in April 2017 whereas the accident had taken place in
November, 2012, and therefore the Tribunal should have constituted a
medical board and referred the claimant to the medical board for
assessment of the disability as in Paragraph 18 of the said decision the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that the Tribunals should act with
caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did
not treat the injured but who give “ready to use” disability certificates,
without proper medical assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further
observed that there are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who
without treating the injured, readily give liberal disability certificates to
help the claimants.The Appellant also contended that the driver of a
vehicle is a vital witness and in this case he could not be produced or

¶41

AVK

1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

6 of 20

FA-147-2019.doc

examined by the Respondent. The Appellant submitted that therefore the
Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that the Respondent is earning a
monthly income of Rs.9000/- per month and granting compensation of
Rs.13,50,073/- along with interest @8%. It was therefore prayed that the
Impugned Judgment and Award be set aside.

¶46

12.Mr. Mendon, learned counsel for the Respondent has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the Appellant. He has drawn my attention
to the FIR at Pg. 30 of the Appeal wherein the BEST driver has been
charged under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as
well as Sections 184, 134(A) and (B) of the MV Act, all of which he
submits, are serious in nature. He also submits that as mentioned in the
FIR the driver ran away immediately after the accident and there were
some pedestrians who noted the bus number and reported the matter to
the police. He submits that the driver was driving the BEST bus in a rash,
dangerous and negligent manner as a result of which the Respondent
suffered serious injuries which resulted in permanent partial disability. The
learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that the BEST driver
was also in clear violation of Sections 134 and 184 of the MV Act.

¶47

AVK

¶48

7 of 20

¶49

FA-147-2019.doc

¶50

13.On the claim of contributory negligence raised by the Appellant, the
learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the BEST driver was
chargesheeted and criminal case was filed before the Magistrate.

¶51

14.The learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the
Appellant failed to examine the driver before the Tribunal and that unless
the driver was examined no contributory negligence could be attributed to
the Respondent as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Jiju Kuruvilla & other v. Kunjujamna Mohan and others2. The

¶52

learned counsel would submit that it is well settled law3 that the person
who is driving a heavy vehicle or the bigger vehicle has to be more
cautious than smaller vehicle and therefore the bus of the Appellant being
a heavy transport vehicle was required to be cautious and take extra care
and caution of another vehicle.

¶53

15.On the issue of compensation, the learned counsel for the
Respondent relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

¶54

case of Shiva Kumar M. v. Managing Director, BMC4 to submit that the
compensation was correctly calculated by the Tribunal.

¶55

2 2013 ACJ 2141.

¶56

3 Yerramma & other v. G. Krishnamurthy & Anr. (2014 ACJ 2161)

¶57

4 2017(2) TAC-11 (SC).

¶58

AVK

¶59

8 of 20

¶60

FA-147-2019.doc

¶61

16.I have heard Mr. Wadhwani learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr. Mendon, learned counsel for the Respondent at length and with their
able assistance, I have perused the papers and proceedings in the matter
and considered the rival contentions.

¶62

17.The Appellant has raised two primary grounds to challenge the
Impugned Judgment and Award, the first ground being that the Tribunal
while granting compensation failed to take into account the fact that the
Respondent was driving the motorcycle in high speed despite the traffic
being moderate and therefore there is contributory negligence on the part
of the Respondent and the second ground being that the Respondent
failed to establish the profession and monthly income and physical
disability and therefore the Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion
based on guess work that the Respondent is earning a monthly income of
Rs.9000/- inspite of categorical admission by the Respondent in cross
examination of not having any documentary proof to establish
employment.

¶63

18.But before that a bit on the negligence of the driver of the BEST
bus. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶64

AVK

¶65

9 of 20

¶66

FA-147-2019.doc

¶67

in the case of Dulcina Fernandes and Others v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and
Another5 wherein it was held that the plea of negligence under the MV Act
is required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and not on the basis of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The Tribunal held that in view of the principles laid
down in the case of Dulcina Fernandes and Others (supra), in all
eventualities, it was BEST driver who was negligent and responsible for
occurence of the accident and that no any part of negligence can be
attributed to the Respondent.

¶68

19.The Tribunal concluded that the issue of negligent driving could
only be decided on the basis of the Respondent's version and on the basis
of the police papers available on record. On the basis of the damage to the
motorcylce recorded in the spot panchnama, the cross examination of the
Respondent and the conduct of the driver as recorded in the FIR, the
Tribunal concluded that the BEST driver was at fault and responsible for
the accident. In this context it would be useful to quote the relevant
portion of Paragraph 8 of the Impugned Judgment and Award as under:

¶69

“8.....In this matter, BEST bus was not negotiating the turn
rather it is the case of the opposite party that applicant was

¶70

5 2013 (4) TAC 827 (SC)

¶71

AVK

¶72

10 of 20

¶73

FA-147-2019.doc

¶74

moving on his motorcycle from left to right side. There is no
dispute that heavy passenger vehicle must take more
precaution and care of other vehicles driven on the road. It
was late night hours and moderate traffic on road when the
accident occurred. In view of death of BEST driver, it is only
the version of applicant and police papers available on record
to determine the aspect of negligent driving of vehicles. At
the time of recording the spot panchnama, it is noted therein
that motorcycle was lying by the side of road in a damaged
condition. It's right side handle, rear side indicator were
damaged in the accident. The applicant has denied that he
was moving on motorcycle from left to right side and his
evidence is that BEST bus was to his left side the eventuality
as suggested to applicant in cross examination looking to the
right hand side of motorcycle was damaged, it does not
appear that applicant was attempting to cross the bus to go to
the other side of the road. It is the FIR that BEST driver did
not provide any assistance to applicant after accident nor
reported the accident to police. It shows that BEST driver was
to avoid any liability fled away from the spot....”

¶75

20.In a recent judgment in the case of Mathew Alexander v.
Mohmmed Shafi and Another6 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated

¶76

the principles laid down in the case of Dulcina Fernandes and Others
(supra). Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is relevant and is quoted as
under:

¶77

“13....Similarly, in (2009) 13 SCC 530, in the case of Bimla
Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporaton (“Bimla Devi”), it
was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the
amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event of an
accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a

¶78

AVK

¶79

6 2023 SCCOnLine SC 832

¶80

11 of 20

¶81

FA-147-2019.doc

¶82

motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken
into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident
caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not
be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on
account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same
effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 which has
referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi.”

¶83

(emphasis supplied)

¶84

21.From a perusal of the FIR, the spot panchnama, other police papers,

¶85

the examination in chief and cross examination of the Respondent, it
appears that on 14th November, 2012, the Respondent was returning home
at about 1:00 a.m. and was driving towards Sanjay Gandhi Nagar. The
Respondent was along Kalidas Road to go to M.G. Road and when the
Respondent reached beside Chanakya society, Devidayal road, the BEST
bus came from LBS Road and gave a violent dash to the Respondent's
motorcycle due to which the Respondent fell down and sustained fracture
injuries on the left side of his body after which he was taken to Raj
Hospital at Mulund for treatment. It is also clear from the FIR that the
BEST driver fled from the spot and did not offer any assistance to the
Respondent. The BEST driver was also chargesheeted and criminal case
was filed before the Magistrate. It is not in dispute that the BEST driver is

¶86

AVK

¶87

12 of 20

¶88

FA-147-2019.doc

¶89

no more and died during the pendency of the proceedings before the
Tribunal and was not examined before the Tribunal.

¶90

22.Therefore on a preponderance of probabilities, as gathered from the
evidence of the FIR, the spot panchnama, other police papers, the
examination in chief and cross examination of the Respondent, this Court
is of the view that the Respondent sustained injuries in an accident which
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of BEST bus bearing No.
MH-01-AP-0694.

¶91

23.Now coming to the question whether there was any contributory
negligence on the part of the Respondent in this case, one must examine
the well-settled principles of law on this issue. In this regard, it would be
relevant to quote paragraph 8 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶92

Court in the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey
Kunvargi Tak7

¶93

“8. But before that, what is negligence ? Negligence ordinarily
means breach of legal duty to care, but when used in the
expression contributory negligence, it does not mean breach of
any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use
reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property,

¶94

7 (2002) 6 SCC 455

¶95

AVK

¶96

13 of 20

¶97

FA-147-2019.doc

¶98

so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an ‘author of his
own wrong’. The question of contributory negligence arises
when there has been some act or omission on the claimant’s
part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused
and is of such a nature that it may be properly described as
negligence.”

¶99

(emphasis supplied)

¶100

24 . The facts of the present case clearly indicate that the Respondent was driving on his motorcycle along Kalidas Road to go to M.G. Road and when the Respondent reached beside Chanakya society, Devidayal road, the BEST bus came from LBS Road and gave a violent dash to the Respondent's motorcycle due to which the Respondent fell down and sustained fracture injuries. From the FIR, spot panchnama, the other police papers, the examination in chief and cross examination of the Respondent, it does not appear that the Respondent was attempting to cross the BEST bus or was in any manner not using reasonable care or safety. On the contrary, the BEST driver should have been aware of the fact that he was driving a heavy passenger motor vehicle and that it was necessary for him to take extra care and caution of the other vehicles on the road. There is therefore no act or omission on the part of the Respondent which has materially contributed to the damage caused. Further, in the case of Meera Devi and Another vs. Himachal Pradesh

¶101

AVK

¶102

14 of 20

¶103

FA-147-2019.doc

¶104

Road Transport Corporation and Others8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

¶105

observed that to prove contributory negligence, there must be cogent
evidence. The word ‘cogent’ means clear, logical and convincing. In the
facts of the present case, there does not appear to be any cogent evidence
to prove the contributory negligence of the Respondent. Also in the case of
Jiju Kuruvilla (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of
direct or corroborative evidence, the court cannot give any specific finding
about negligence on the part of any individual.

¶106

25.That, not giving particulars of the helmet, in no way proves that
there was contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent. It was
for the Appellant to prove that absence of those details has led to the
accident in question. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent got
injured as he was not wearing a helmet. There is no whisper of any head
injury but fracture injuries on the left side of the body. Therefore, in my
view, nothing would turn on the Appellant’s submission on the aspect of
not giving any particulars of helmet. In any event, it was for the Appellant
to dwell further on this aspect in evidence, which the Appellant has failed
to do.

¶107

AVK

¶108

8 (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 511

¶109

15 of 20

¶110

FA-147-2019.doc

¶111

26.In the present case, therefore, there is no direct or corroborative
evidence about the negligence of the Respondent and hence no
contributory negligence can be attributed to him.

¶112

27. Appellant has further contended that the driver of vehicle was vital
witness and could not be produced and examined by the Appellant. It is
quiet surprising that such a submission is coming from the Appellant who
was the employer of the driver. In my view, it was duty of the Appellant to
examine driver in the first place to prove the allegation of contributory
negligence, that duty cannot be pushed on to the Respondent-Claimant.

¶113

28.In the light of the above, I am of the view that the Tribunal was
correct in holding that the BEST driver was negligent and responsible for
the accident and that no any part of negligence can be attributed to the
Respondent.

¶114

29.I now come to the second issue raised by the Appellant, that the
Respondent failed to establish the profession and monthly income and
physical disability.

¶115

AVK

¶116

16 of 20

¶117

FA-147-2019.doc

¶118

30.The Respondent has disclosed his occupation as panwala in the FIR
which is the same as in the Claim Application where it is stated that he is
the owner and conductor of Jai Matadi Pan Shop. It cannot be said that in
the application before the Tribunal, he has altogether shown a different
profession than disclosed in the FIR. No contrary evidence has been
brought on record by the Appellant. Therefore the Respondent has to be
believed that he was conducting a pan shop at the time of the accident.

¶119

31.Further, in the case of Shiva Kumar M.(supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the Respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when
posed with a similar issue of lack of documentary evidence with regard to
the income of a painter going house to house, held that for a casual
worker it was difficult to get evidence of income and therefore the
evidence of the claimant has to be accepted. The Appellant has not
brought any contrary evidence to disprove the claim of the Respondent. In
the present case although the Respondent had claimed that his income
was Rs.15,000/- per month from the pan shop, the Tribunal estimated his
earning only to be Rs.9000/- per month. The Respondent has accepted
the calculation of notional income and not challenged the same.

¶120

AVK

¶121

17 of 20

¶122

FA-147-2019.doc

¶123

32.On the issue of lack of evidence of physical disability, the
examination in chief and cross examination of Dr. Mukhi, clearly bears
out that it was Dr. Mukhi was the Doctor who treated the Respondent and
the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant on the case of
Raj Kumar(supra) to claim that the Tribunal should have constituted a
medical board and referred the Respondent to such medical board for
assessment of the disability is misplaced in the facts of the case. In fact in
the present case, in line with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that mere production of disability certificate or discharge
will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor
who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the
extent of disability of the claimant is tendered for cross examination with
reference to the certificate, Dr. Mukhi was cross examined on the
Disability Certificate. I have perused the Certificate dated 1st April, 2013
issued by Dr. Mukhi who is stated to have treated the Respondent and has
medically examined and assessed the injury to the Respondent, in which
he has described the injuries of the Respondent as well as the certificate
dated 31st December, 2013 in which Dr. Mukhi has also clearly stated that
the Respondent is having 50% total partial disability. The Appellant has
not brought on record any contrary evidence in this regard. In the present

¶124

AVK

¶125

18 of 20

¶126

FA-147-2019.doc

¶127

case, Dr. Mukhi being the doctor who treated the Respondent and also
assessed the disability of the Respondent, was tendered for cross
examination with reference to the disability certificate.

¶128

33.This is not a case where an unscrupulous Doctor has without
treating the injured given the certificate. No evidence to this effect has
been brought on record and hence the reference to the medical board is
clearly not necessary in the facts of this case. In fact, the Tribunal has
considered functional disability of 45% instead of 50% which has been
accepted by the Respondent.

¶129

34.Ergo, the calculation of 45% loss of future earnings, the mulitplier
of 17 considering the age of the Respondent being below 30 years at the
time of the accident, hospital and medical expenses, a lumpsum amount
towards rest period of four months, expenses of special diet, conveyance
and services rendered by relatives, have, in my view, been correctly
computed totaling to a compensation of Rs.13,50,073/- inclusive of NFL
along with interest at the rate of 8% to be paid from the date of the
application till realization, in accordance with the principles settled in the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

¶130

AVK

¶131

19 of 20

¶132

FA-147-2019.doc

¶133

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.9as well as Sarla Verma & Ors.
v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr.10

¶134

35.In the circumstances, I do not find any error or illegality or
perversity in the findings and the decision of the Tribunal. There is no
merit in the appeal. The Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby
dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Interim order stands vacated.

¶135

36.The Respondent is entitled to total compensation of Rs.
13,50,073/-along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and is
permitted to withdraw the claim amount less the amount already
withdrawn, with proportionate accrued interest at the above rate.

¶136

37. Let the Record and Proceedings lying in this court be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai.

¶137

 (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶138

10 (2009)6 SCC 121

¶139

AVK

¶140

9 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680

¶141

20 of 20

Bombay Electric Supply and Transport v. Shri.Pradeep Gyanchandra Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Electric Supply and Transport v. Shri.Pradeep Gyanchandra Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Sidhpur Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs Shah Group

Sidhpur Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs Shah Group Builders and Infraprojects Ltd.

M/S Vimal Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Multiflex Laxmi Print Limited

Sau Neha Niket Pokhrana Vs Shri. Niket Rajendra Pokhrana

Ashwini Amogh Rao Vs Amogh Chamraj Rao

Reliance Gen Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Shri. Nitin Madhukar Dighe and Ors.