https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186928 The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in awarding compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution without claimants proving negligence in tort actions. Mere electrocution was not sufficient for compensation; negligence and circumstances needed examination. The High Court should have directed claimants to the Civil Court for resolution. The Court dismissed the appeals, noting the appellants' fair stand as test cases and the time elapsed since payments to claimants. Setting aside the judgments might expose appellants to further civil actions. The High Court's failure to appreciate its jurisdiction led to the judgments being set aside. en-us Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:42:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186928 The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in awarding compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution without claimants proving negligence in tort actions. Mere electrocution was not sufficient for compensation; negligence and circumstances needed examination. The High Court should have directed claimants to the Civil Court for resolution. The Court dismissed the appeals, noting the appellants' fair stand as test cases and the time elapsed since payments to claimants. Setting aside the judgments might expose appellants to further civil actions. The High Court's failure to appreciate its jurisdiction led to the judgments being set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186928