Advanced Search Results

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Phelishsa Bakai and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Motor VehiclesInsurance

the driver of the said bus were impleaded as party respondents to the claim applications. Though the relevant insurance policy admittedly covered the risk in respect of 34 passengers, neither the owner nor the driver of the

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through It's Divisional Manager and A ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Insurance

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147, 149, 149(2) and 168; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 141 and 142

Reported in : 2008ACJ213; 2008(1)ALLMR78; 2007(5)BomCR520; (2007)109BOMLR1786; 2008(1)MhLj73

persons and injured claimants were travelling in the matado vehicle as gratuitous passengers. The Tribunal held that the insurance company (appellant) was not liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mallikarjun and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : InsuranceMotor Vehicles

Reported in : I(1991)ACC414

1961, the question that arises for consideration is:When a registered owner of a motor vehicle covered by an insurance policy transfers the vehicle to another, but does not secure certificate of transfer of the insurance policy covering

Smt. Kavitha Dilip Patil and ors. Vs. Ananda Gnanu Patil and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Motor VehiclesInsurance

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149(2), 167 and 170; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 30

Reported in : II(2004)ACC221; 2004ACJ1000; ILR2004KAR461; 2004(2)KarLJ569; (2004)IILLJ637Kant

The learned Single Judge on admitting the case found that the Division Bench of this Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE v. VALAWWA, : (1994)ILLJ433Kant has not taken into consideration another judgment of this Court in the case of

Madineni Kondaiah and ors. Etc. Vs. Yaseen Fatima and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : InsuranceMotor Vehicles

Reported in : 1(1986)ACC501

the vehicle. The vehicle was insured for third party risks on July 30, 1973 for Rs. 50,000/-. The insurance policy was not transferred to the Vendee. The Vendee or Vendor did not inform the insurance company of

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ruchi Worldwide Ltd.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Insurance

Reported in : [2009]97SCL383(MP)

No. 1743 of 2001, as both the writ petitions have arisen out of the orders passed by the Insurance Ombudsman. WP No. 1998 of 2001 has been filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the

The Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajagopalan and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : InsuranceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 5, 6, 8, 9, 13(2), 19, 19(1), 19(5), 19(6), 31, 31(2), 39 and 226; Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Sections 45; Constitutional Law; Insurance Act, 1938 - Sections 52A to 52G; Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1950

Reported in : AIR1952P& H9

these. On the 17th of February, 1951, respondent No. 1 gave notice under Section 52A of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the Jupiter General Insurance Company, Limited, Bombay, the Empire

Mohan Lal Raghbir Singh and ors. Vs. Balbir Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Motor VehiclesInsurance

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Rules, 1946; Insurance Act, 1938; General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 74 and 77; General Insurance (Emergency) Act, 1971

Reported in : [1999]96CompCas460(P& H)

Bench as it was felt that there were conflicting opinions on the admissibility of the copy of the insurance policy in evidence and the onus to prove the terms of the policy.2. In First Appeal from Order

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamla Rani and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : InsuranceCivil

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 74 and 77; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 95, 95(4), 110A and 110C(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(17)

Reported in : 1997ACJ1081; (1997)117PLR302

Bench as it was felt that there were conflicting opinions on the admissibility of the copy of the Insurance Policy in evidence and the onus to prove the terms of the policy.2. In FAO No. 1154 of

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Crown Life Insurance Co.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Insurance

Acts : Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956; Insurance Act, 1938 - Sections 2, 2(10), 10, 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 11, 13, 13(1), 27(1), 27(6), 35, 35(1), 35(2), 49(1), 56, 56(2), 58 and 58(3)

Reported in : AIR1965SC1985; [1965]35CompCas741(SC); [1965]3SCR474

only question that arises for determination in this appeal by special leave from the order of the Life Insurance Tribunal, Bombay, is the interpretation of the words 'life insurance fund' as used in paragraph 4 of Part