1 - 10 of 2308 (0.90 seconds)
search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. Explanation I.-- Where
Central Government Act
when, but for wilful abstention from inquiry or gross negligence, he would have known it, or when information
Central Government Act
alleged claim for
loss by wilful default or gross negligence.
HEADNOTE:
By a Notification dated November 19, 1949 issued ... grounds of the claim were (a) that due to
gross negligence ., and wilful default the appellant herein,
contravened
Supreme Court of India
that the
said next friend was further guilty of gross negligence and laches
in not preferring an appeal against ... actings of their guardian, (b) Anupama was guilty of gross
negligence in the conduct of the previous suit
Calcutta High Court
father.
The Deputy Director (Consolidation) further observed that gross
negligence means culpable neglect of the interest of a minor ... that was available and that
she was guilty of gross negligence. On the basis of the evidence on
record
Supreme Court of India
separate
suit merely on the ground of gross negligence of his guardian, he could
not do so in that ... Nandan Dobey [1895] 22 Cal. 8 that gross negligence on the
part of a next friend in the conduct
Allahabad High Court
required both as
regards a person who alleges gross negligence on the part of his nest
friend when ... minor plaintiff and as regards a person who
alleges gross negligence on the part of his guardian-ad-litem
Patna High Court
could by way of.
defence raise a plea of gross negligence on the part of his
guardian-ad-litem ... absence of fraud or collusion if there had been gross
negligence. The Patna High Court came to the same
Madras High Court
respondents in that the petitioner was guilty
of gross negligence. We must, therefore, bear in mind that the
misconduct ... alleged against the petitioner in terms is of gross
negligence. It is not mere negligence. Mere negligence
Gujarat High Court
plaintiff in the former action but for the gross negligence of
defendants 2 to 4. The raison d'etre ... that the defendants 2 to 4 were
guilty of gross negligence, that the plaint proceeds on the footing
that
Madras High Court
Get new documents for this query in your RSS feed reader -