<?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>2023 (2) TMI 653 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434138</link>
    <description>A hazardous signboard falling from premises under a defendant&#039;s control can support liability in negligence under res ipsa loquitur and strict liability principles, because control over the dangerous object and a duty of care to users of the adjacent public pathway are key. The act of God defence fails where the weather event was foreseeable and not shown to be extraordinary, and the absence of municipal permission does not by itself negate civil liability. A criminal acquittal of the manager does not defeat civil negligence because the standards of proof differ. A separate appellate request for interest was not granted, as it had not been specifically pursued before the Single Judge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (2) TMI 653 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434138</link>
      <description>A hazardous signboard falling from premises under a defendant&#039;s control can support liability in negligence under res ipsa loquitur and strict liability principles, because control over the dangerous object and a duty of care to users of the adjacent public pathway are key. The act of God defence fails where the weather event was foreseeable and not shown to be extraordinary, and the absence of municipal permission does not by itself negate civil liability. A criminal acquittal of the manager does not defeat civil negligence because the standards of proof differ. A separate appellate request for interest was not granted, as it had not been specifically pursued before the Single Judge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>