<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (7) TMI 1025 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157011</link>
    <description>An airline is not liable in damages for delay caused by circumstances beyond its control, such as bad weather or air traffic control constraints, but it must still provide minimum passenger facilitation to boarded passengers during prolonged delay. The duty to supply water, snacks and access to toilets applies even to a low-cost carrier and operates independently of any claim for compensation. The Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad was held to have territorial jurisdiction because the contractual clause referring to Delhi courts could not exclude its statutory jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad. Compensation and costs were unsustainable absent proof of negligence, unlawful detention or actionable deficiency in service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1025 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157011</link>
      <description>An airline is not liable in damages for delay caused by circumstances beyond its control, such as bad weather or air traffic control constraints, but it must still provide minimum passenger facilitation to boarded passengers during prolonged delay. The duty to supply water, snacks and access to toilets applies even to a low-cost carrier and operates independently of any claim for compensation. The Permanent Lok Adalat at Hyderabad was held to have territorial jurisdiction because the contractual clause referring to Delhi courts could not exclude its statutory jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad. Compensation and costs were unsustainable absent proof of negligence, unlawful detention or actionable deficiency in service.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>