Advanced Search Results

Rangasamy Vs. Periammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Reported in : 1991ACJ45

V. Ratnam, J.1. This appeal, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal … on transfer of the vehicle is not one of the permissible defences under Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance in this connection was placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon the decision reported in Madineni

Rama Shanker Misra and Brothers Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Kanp ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 32 and 226; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 2(20), 59, 59(1), 59(2), 60(1) and 68(1); Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 - Rules 63 and 64

Reported in : AIR1960All247

served upon the petitioner to show cause why the permit be not cancelled under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 22-9-1956 and the matter was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in … the ground of suppression or concealment of material facts or of misstatement of facts.13. Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act make a provision for an appeal against an order of the Regional Transport Authority cancelling or suspending the

Prakash Chandra Vishnu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Motor VehiclesConstitution

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 2(8), 2(33), 52, 53(2) and 68; Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 - Rule 94; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19(1)

Reported in : AIR1959All373

on 7-9-1955. It is valid upto 6-9-1958. In the permit that was granted to this petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act two conditions amongst others were provided, firstly, with regard to the nature of the goods to be carried … returns, the complaint is that this is not required by any rules framed under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in their absence a condition in that behalf is illegal.The reliefs asked in the two petitions accordingly

Smt. Lagana Devi and ors. Vs. Lila Ram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 96 and 96(2)

Reported in : [1988]64CompCas814(Raj); 1985WLN(UC)310

P.C. Jain, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the judgment and award dated February 5, 1981, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, … compensation in view of the provisions contained in Sub-clause (2) of Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act.4. Shri P.K. Bhansali, appearing on behalf of the insurance company, has seriously contested the submissions made by learned

Srikanth vs Hatterike Gururaj and Anr

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

not be able to recover the same. One more reason for the view taken by us is, the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial legislation, the object of the Act is in the benefit - 23 - … and recover the same from the owner of the Car as there are involvement of more than two vehicles and they being third parties to the bus. Also sought for enhancement of compensation.3. The date of accident,

Raju @ Tippanna vs Hatterike Gururaj and Anr

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

not be able to recover the same. One more reason for the view taken by us is, the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial legislation, the object of the Act is in the benefit - 23 - … and recover the same from the owner of the Car as there are involvement of more than two vehicles and they being third parties to the bus. Also sought for enhancement of compensation.3. The date of accident,

Hanmanth and Ors vs Hatterike Gururaj and Anr

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

not be able to recover the same. One more reason for the view taken by us is, the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial legislation, the object of the Act is in the benefit - 23 - … and recover the same from the owner of the Car as there are involvement of more than two vehicles and they being third parties to the bus. Also sought for enhancement of compensation.3. The date of accident,

Veeresh vs Hatterike Gururaj and Anr

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

not be able to recover the same. One more reason for the view taken by us is, the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial legislation, the object of the Act is in the benefit - 23 - … and recover the same from the owner of the Car as there are involvement of more than two vehicles and they being third parties to the bus. Also sought for enhancement of compensation.3. The date of accident,

The Depot Manager Nekrtc vs Hanmanth and Ors

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

not be able to recover the same. One more reason for the view taken by us is, the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial legislation, the object of the Act is in the benefit - 23 - … and recover the same from the owner of the Car as there are involvement of more than two vehicles and they being third parties to the bus. Also sought for enhancement of compensation.3. The date of accident,

The Depot Manager Nekrtc vs Veeresh and Anr

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

not be able to recover the same. One more reason for the view taken by us is, the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial legislation, the object of the Act is in the benefit - 23 - … and recover the same from the owner of the Car as there are involvement of more than two vehicles and they being third parties to the bus. Also sought for enhancement of compensation.3. The date of accident,