Petitioners sought compensation for their son's death allegedly caused by negligence involving a kite string. The High Court declined to adjudicate questions of fact under Article 226 and disposed of the petition.
Petition allowed subject to exceptions; liberty given to institute appropriate proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~45
MOHD AYUB KHAN AND ANOTHER ..... Petitioners
Through Mr Ankush Singh Pawr, Advocate for UOI.
versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R
% 08.09.2017 CM 32625/2017
W.P.(C) 7895/2017
used to fly kites and, his death was caused due to strangulation. The petitioners further states that an FIR in this regard has also been registered. 5. It is apparent from the reading of the petition that the controversy involves several questions of fact, which would have to be determined. In this view, this Court does not consider it apposite to do so in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 pkv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct compensation for death allegedly caused by negligence in these writ proceedings involving questions of fact.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MOHD AYUB KHAN AND ANOTHER
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
VIBHU BAKHRU
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
