SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Stray Dogs killed by child - Proposes ₹10 Lac Compensation for Family: Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Recently, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow heard a PIL that it had spontaneously filed in April 2022 regarding an incident that occurred in Lucknow in which stray dogs attacked a young child and his sister, resulting in the tragic death of the child and severe injuries to his sister.

At the time of the incident, the court had ordered that the surviving girl receive all possible medical treatment without cost.

In response, the Registrar of King George Medical University, Lucknow filed an affidavit stating that the injured girl received the necessary medical care.

Mohd Qumail Haider, the attorney representing the girl's parents, expressed satisfaction with the care she received. In addition, he requested that monetary compensation be given to the child's family.

The court stated that in an earlier order it had ordered monetary compensation to be given to the family and noted that in response, the Additional Advocate General had produced a letter from DM Lucknow in which Rs 1,50,000 had been approved.

However, the court noted that it is undisputed that human life was lost in the incident and that it appears to be the result of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow's negligence.

If the State or one of its instrumentalities fails to carry out its statutory or otherwise required obligations and duties, resulting in the loss of human life, the deceased's surviving family members must be provided with some form of compensation, whether monetary or not.

The Bench of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Rajnish Kumar opined that the family of the deceased child should receive Rs 10,000,000 and ordered the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to file an affidavit explaining why the proposed sum cannot be allocated.

One Kamal Sharma filed an intervention application stating that he has been involved with the welfare of animals and is a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He raised some concerns regarding the welfare of the animals, and the court agreed to hear his concerns.

The court also requested that Amicus Curiae Advocates Vijay Dixit, Abhishek Pratap, and Mohit Pandey submit a brief detailing the legal provisions that allow monetary compensation to be awarded to the child's family.

The Bench also appointed Advocate Akash Prasad as Amicus Curiae and asked him to address the court on the issues that have arisen in the case, and then scheduled the case for further hearing on August 30.

D.D:08-07-2022

Suo-Moto Re- Menace Created By Stray Dogs versus State of UP & Ors.

Latest Legal News