02. In short, it is a case of the petitioners that the deceased Mahendra Mukundrao Bansode was working as driver with respondent no.01 on his vehicle Ape auto rickshaw bearing registration no. MH-23-X-4372. On 18/07/2014 as per say of respondent no.01, the deceased Mahendra Mukundrao Bansode was proceeding in the said Ape auto rickshaw from Latur to Lokhandi Sawargaon. He was doing his work as per the instruction and directions of respondent no. 01. While coming from Latur to Lokhandi Sawargaon, when he reached near Selu Amba, at that time, suddenly one dog came in front of the auto rickshaw. The deceased tried to save the said dog and lost his control over the auto rickshaw. In the result, the said auto rickshaw turn turtle and the deceased …show more content…
Thereafter, the respondents gave assurance to pay compensation to the petitioners, but they did not pay. Respondent no.01 is owner and respondent no. 02 is insurer of the Ape auto rickshaw bearing registration no. MH-23-X-4372. The deceased Mahendra Mukundrao Bansode was serving with respondent no.01 as driver. There was employee and employer relationship between the deceased Mahendra Mukundrao Bansode and respondent no. 01. The deceased Mahendra, at the relevant time was doing his duty on the say of respondent no. 01. The deceased Mahendra was only earning member in his family and at the time of death, he was 40 years old. Respondent no. 01 was paying Rs.8,000/- per month towards salary to the deceased Mahendra Mukundrao Bansode. Hence, in view of Schedule IV of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 multiplier of 184.17 is applied and the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,46,680/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the respondents. The respondents have failed to pay compensation amount within one month from the date of the knowledge of the death of the deceased Mahendra Mukundrao Bansode. Therefore, they are also liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount as penalty. Ultimately, the petitioners prayed to allow this petition in terms of prayer …show more content…
Respondent no. 02 resisted the petition by filing written say (Exh.No. 16). In written say, respondent no. 02 died all adverse allegations. Respondent no. 02 denied that there was employee and employer relationship between the deceased Mahendra and respondent no. 01 and respondent no. 02, being insurer of Ape auto rickshaw is liable to pay compensation and penalty amount. In additional written say, respondent no. 02 pleaded that the vehicle bearing registration no. MH-23-X-4372 was registered as private vehicle and insurance policy was also obtained for the same purpose. However, in police papers, it is clearly mentioned that at the relevant time of accident the said vehicle was used for commercial purpose. The said fact amounts to serious breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, respondent no. 02 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Respondent no. 02 in additional written say further pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased Mahendra Bansode was not holding valid and effective driving license and the said fact also amounts to serious breach on the part of respondent no. 01. Moreover, respondent no. 01 has not intimated about this accident to respondent no. 02. In the above circumstances, on that count also respondent no. 02 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Ultimately, respondent no.02 prayed to dismiss the petition with
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
offender) by using this law. Kumar explains of how the victim’s father said his dying
Nimi Feghabo is an Atlanta-based consultant in Capgemini’s Custom Software Development service line. She has worked and acquired knowledge in many different industries spanning from Accounting to the Legal Industry. She brings significant leadership experience along with a proven track record. Prior to Capgemini, she has had experience in various industries which include legal, manufacturing, and international professional services. Her contributions include software implementation, ERP development, and facilitating changes. Through these projects, she has gained valuable insight and is able to develop transformative solutions into an effective facilitation strategy.
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
During the 1990s, Samara Brothers, Inc. designed and manufactured children’s clothing that was sold in department stores. The clothes made by Samara Bros. consisted of one-piece outfits that were made of seer-sucker fabric with large appliques in a variety of decorative themes for girls and boys. Around the same time, Walmart Inc. hired a clothing manufacturing company to create a line of children’s clothing based on the current line from Samara Bros. Walmart Inc. named their copied line of clothing “Small Steps” and successfully sold it at a lower cost in their national chain of stores making millions in profits. Once Samara Brothers, Inc. learned of the copied garments, they sent numerous letters to Walmart, Inc. to stop the sale and production of the materials they believed they had the right to defend under trade dress laws. When Walmart, Inc. still continued to sell the copied garments, Samara Brothers, Inc. took Walmart, Inc. to court.
Were there any civil lawsuits in addition to criminal penalties? No, there were not any civil law suits in this case
Lights, camera, action! The light switches on, and shines brightly in the center of the stage. Two people walk towards it, these are actors that were told to come out at this exact moment by the director. After days of intense rehearsals. The two young actors burst. “We are tired of working for you” the two participants yell towards the director. The director in a surprising manner walks up to the stage, stares down at the performers and laughs. “You are going nowhere; I have your contract and your pay, now back to your positions!” The performers stand and continue their roles with no opinion in the matter. The camera turns off, the shadows of the actors disappear. The common person stands up and is face to face with the director. The director
Among the many differing cases of wrongfully convicted Canadians, the case of Guy Paul Morin is very interesting. There were many issues that caused an innocent man from Queensville, Ontario to be convicted of the murder of Christine Jessop. We’re going to look at how the police failed to conduct a thorough investigation, how the court system failed, and how cases like this can be preventing in the future.
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Below I will be analyzing the Responsibility for Accident case to find out the answer about the inquiry of who is responsible for a work accident – the employee or the company? First of all, I am going to look at every fact and different points of view of the case. I will also going to analyze the employee’s complains about the unsafe workplace. On the other hand, I will analyze what is the foreman’s defense to demonstrate that the employee is responsible for the accident and not the company.
On request, it was held that as the expired was a Hindu and the litigant a Chinese Buddhist the law which legislated the marriage between them was not Hindu law however the law of Malacca in 1943. There was a marriage as indicated by Hindu custom and in spite of the fact that there was an flawed wedding function, Barakbah LP was of the view that, it didn't influence the legitimacy of the marriage as it was performed amid the Japanese Occupation when developments of a single person and also a group were stringently confined. It was additionally held that the assent of the first wife regardless of the fact that it was key for the legitimacy of such marriage could be gathered from the circumstances of the case. This case demonstrates the recognition of Hindu Marriages as per Hindu custom and additionally its significance in guaranteeing the things of the Hindu Marriage function are conformed
Response of M/S Adani Port & SEZ Ltd. to Show Cause Notice dated 30th September, 2013.