CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2012 › Simrat Kaur v. State of Haryana .

Simrat Kaur v. State of Haryana .

Supreme Court of India · 1 October 2012

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
1 October 2012
Case no.
C.A. No. 7204 of 2012
Bench
H.L. Dattu, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7204 OF 2012 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9766 OF 2009) SIMRAT KAUR & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1.
Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal No.3922 of 2007, dated 16.09.2008.

3. On the last date of hearing, we had requested the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 to find out whether the respondents are prepared to give the enhanced compensation, as was done by the High Court in the case of Balkar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Harayana & Ors., in R.F.A.No.2612/1991, dated 14.11.2003.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation, on instructions and taking into consideration the pathetic condition of the first appellant, submits that the respondent-Corporation is prepared to pay the enhanced compensation only to the widow, i.e. appellant no.1, in accordance with the aforesaid judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balkar Singh's case (supra).

JUDGMENT

:2:

5. Placing on record the concession so made by learned senior counsel for the respondent-Corporation, we dispose of the appeal in the following terms :

(i) The respondent-corporation shall pay the enhanced

compensation to the first appellant, namely, Smt.Simrat Kaur, widow of late Shri Jagtar Singh;

(ii) We make it clear that the first appellant and others

are not entitled to get any interest or solatium on the amount that would be paid by the respondent-corporation;

(iii) Our order shall not be treated as a precedent in any

other case.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J.

(H.L. DATTU)

.......................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 01, 2012

Ask CaseMinister about Simrat Kaur v. State of Haryana .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp