Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. MohiuddIn Kureshi Alias Md. Moya and ors.

Decided On : Sep-21-1993

Court : Patna

LAW: Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 140, Section 173, Section 140, Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 173, Chapter X, Section 140(2, Section 140, Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 141, Section 140, Section 141, Section 140, Section 140, Section 140, Section 140, Section 166, Section 140, Section 166, Section 162.Section 171, Section 140, Section 166, Section 166, Section 140, Section 140, Section 140, Section 140, Section 173, Section 173, Section 140 of the Act, Section 168, Section 140(1, Section 140, Section 141, Section 140, Section 140, Section 168, Section 166, Section 140, Section 140, Section 140, Section 140, Section 173, Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 92-A of the Act.19, Section 166, Section 140, Section 166 of the Act, Section 140 of the Act or Section 168, Section 174, Section 140 of the Act, Section 174, Section 173, Section 140 of the Act, a Full Bench, Section 140, Section 174 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Act, Section 140, Section 140, Section 140 of the Act, Section 140 of the Act, Section 173, Section 173 of the Act, Section 173, Section 171, Section 166 of the Act, Section 140 thereof.27, Section 171, Section 140

ORG: S.B. Sinha, inter alia, Tribunal, Judicial, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Judicial, Division Bench, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gaya Prasad v., the Claims Tribunal, the Bombay High Court, Tribunal, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, the Claims Tribunal, the High Court, Parliament, National Insurance Co. Ltd., United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kerala High Court, the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal, Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal, The Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Lakshmi, Karnataka, the High Court, Claims Tribunal, Tribunal, United India Ins, Co. Ltd., Immam Aminasab Nadaf, Gaya Prasad, the Privy Council, Arbitrators, Claims Tribunal, Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal, the High Court, Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal, the Bombay High Court, Prakash Chandumal, the Rajasthan High Court, Tribunal

NORP: J.1

DATE: 20.8.1993, 1990, 1992, 1992, six months of the date, ninety days, ninety days, 1988, 1990, thirty days, 1991, six months, 1939, 1988, 1097, 1990, 1992, 1992, 1992

WORK_OF_ART: questions:(i

CARDINAL: 1988.2, 1 to 6, 4.4.1991, 25,000/-, one, 163, 200, 25,000/-, 12,000/-, 3, 1939.9, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, twenty-five thousand, 2, 4, 2, 270, two, two, One, one, two, one, one, 1, 2, 3, 18, 3, two, 200, 2, 1, 25,000/-, 1, two, 1, 369, 163

PERSON: Nos, P.K. Bhowmik, Kanwar v. Kishanlal 1992, N.N. Tiwary, Khatri, Bombay).6, Chapter XII, Act;12, Jugal Kishore, Bhowmik, Bhowmik, Nazir Ahmed, Kishan Nandlal, Khatri, Bhowmik, Narayan Roy, J.31

GPE: Ranchi, Kerala, Prakash, Kerala, Bombay, Bombay, Dhapa Kanwar v. Kishanlal

MONEY: 12 per cent, fifty per cent, 50 per cent

PRODUCT: 751, 369, Act, 751, 239, 757, a Full Bench, the Full Bench

ORDINAL: first, first, first, second, first, second, first, first, second, second, third, first

PERCENT: less than