Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insurance act 1938 4 of 1938 section 10 separation of accounts and funds Page 6 of about 1,365 results (0.334 seconds)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indirabai

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1992ACJ292; ILR1991KAR4229

..... p.m. and not earlier on the same date. he submitted that in view of section 64-vb of the insurance act, the insurance company is debarred from covering any risk prior to the date and time of receiving the premium.4. in support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this court in asma begum v. nisar ..... no. 4 - date of expiry of insurance, the date given is 26-2-1990. as against column date of issue - time, it is mentioned as follows:- 'date of issue 27-2-1989, ..... authenticated copy of the cover note and the insurance policy etc. on 12-4-1991, the learned counsel for the insurance company has produced the quadruplicate copy of the cover note and the insurance policy. in the cover note at column no. 3, the effective date of commencement of insurance for the purpose of the act is mentioned as 27-2-1989; against column .....

M.K. Kunhimohammed Vs. P.A. Ahmedkutty and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : II(1987)ACC346; AIR1987SC2158; JT1987(3)SC465; (1987)92PLR689; 1987(2)SCALE442; (1987)4SCC284; [1987]3SCR1149

..... indemnify the petitioner was limited to rs. 5,000 as the policy specifically limited the insurer's liability to what had been provided by section 95(2)(b)(ii)(2) and (4) of motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal the petitioner filed an appeal before the high court of kerala. the ..... of section 95 of the act during the relevant time read as follows:95(2). subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one ..... the contention of the petitioner before this court is that the insurer was liable to indemnify the petitioner up to a limit of rs. 75,000 under section 95(2)(b)(ii)(2) of the act and that the further limit mentioned in section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the act was inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. the relevant part .....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sire Kanwar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : [2007(112)FLR104]; 2007(1)SLJ381(Raj)

..... . 2006(2) rcr (civil) 655 : 2006(2) rdd 726 (raj.) (db), clearly held that since the insurer had charged additional premium to cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under the workmen's compensation act, the insurance company cannot deny the liability to reimburse the penalty amount.4. the learned counsel for both the parties referred various judgments, which i shall be considering hereinbelow:the ..... the vehicle involved in the accident, which includes compensation, interest and penalty as imposed upon the insured under section 4- a(3)(b) of the workmen's compensation act, 1923.said judgment was challenged by performing d.b. civil special appeal no. 47/2-2 (civil) -national insurance company ltd. v. smt. nema and ors. the issue was again considered by the division bench .....

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shivalingamma and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1999ACJ1484

..... under the motor tariff rules, 1989 as framed under section 64-uc of the insurance act, 1938 the requirement is that both the tractor and the trailer must be insured with the same insurer and not with different insurers/mr. krishnaswamy submitted that in the present case, insurer of the two, i.e., tractor and trailer being different, the liability ..... effect from 1.8.1989. it is mentioned therein, that tariff rules are binding on all insurers and any breach of tariffs shall be breach of insurance vide the provisions of section 64-uc, sub-section (5), of the insurance act, 1938. it is mentioned at the bottom as private and confidential. this tariff is for the use ..... as both are insured the liability of the insurance company will be of the tractor which was insured, viz., respondent no. 8 in the appeal, i.e., respondent no. 4. in support of his contention mr. shankar invited my attention to the provisions of section 64u as contained in part ii-b of the insurance act, 1938 and submitted that .....

Prakash Chandra and ors. Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. L ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1986(2)WLN53

..... sheikhpura transport co. ltd.'s case : air1971sc1624 are attracted in this case and according to that of the liability of the insurance company is limited to rs. 5000/-only under section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the act. motor owner's insurance co. ltd.'s case : [1982]1scr860 on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants is clearly ..... wln 783 and sheikhupura transport co. ltd.'s case : air1971sc1624 held that under section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) the statutory liability of the insurance co. is only upto rs. 5000/- and not beyond that. the unamended section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the act came up for consideration before g.m. lodha, j., in suraj narain v. sneh lata jain 1985 ..... it stood prior to the amendment is applicable, to the case on hand and according to that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claims upto rs. 5000/- only under section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the act. this was taken by this court in m/s automobile transport v. dewlal 1976 wln 783 and sampat lal v. smt. .....

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal Aggarwal

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : 2004ACJ1657

..... the act of 1972, the exclusive privilege of the gic and ..... companies of the gic : (1) national insurance company limited, (2) the new india assurance company limited, (3) the oriental insurance company limited, and (4) united india insurance company limited. the next landmark happened on 19th april 2000, when the insurance regulatory and development authority act, 1999 (irdaa) came into force. this act also introduced amendments to act of 1972 and the insurance act of 1938. by insertion of section 24a in .....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal Aggarwal

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2004)1GLR637; [2004]53SCL330(Guj)

..... 24a in the act of 1972, the exclusive privilege of the ..... .i.c.: (1) national insurance company limited, (2) the new india assurance company limited, (3) the oriental insurance company limited, and (4) united india insurance company limited. the next landmark happened on 19th april, 2000, when the insurance regulatory and development authority act, 1999 (i.r.d.a.a.) came into force. this act also introduced amendments to act of 1972 and the insurance act of 1938. by insertion of section .....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhata Ram and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2008(2)WLN311

..... and the authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help their contentions, the applications filed by the insurance company under order 22 rules 4 and 9 of c.p.c. and under section 5 of the limitation act and the appeal deserve to be dismissed as there being no merit in the appeal.8. accordingly, the applications filed by ..... ]supp5scr350 .5. learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions placed with regard to the applications filed by the insurance company under order 22 rules 4 and 9 of c.p.c. and the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act and submitted that the sole contesting respondent had expired long back and an information in that respect was given to .....

M/S. Omarkhayyam Bar and Restaurant Vs. Deputy Regional Director, Sub ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... appellant-establishment, on facts, it was established that it was a factory within the meaning of section 2 (12) of the state insurance act and as such it attracted the provisions of the state insurance act. 4. not satisfied with this order, the appellant is before this court in this appeal. 5. this appeal has been admitted by this ..... is a factory as defined under section 2(12) so as to attract the provisions of the state insurance act in terms of section 1(4). section 2(12) of the state insurance act, as it stood prior to its substitution by the employees state insurance (amendment) act, 2010 (18/2010), with effect from 1.6.2010 reads as under: section 2(12) ..... by the state of maharashtra on 19.11.1976. according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 1 themselves show that the state insurance act in the first instance applies to all the factories and then to other establishments, to whom it is made applicable by notification and, .....

M.R. Joseph, Enforcement Officer, Epf Vs. John Menezes

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2003KAR4525

..... complied with which reads as under:'14ac. cognizance and trial of offences: no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this act, the scheme or the pension scheme or the insurance scheme except on a report in writing of the facts constituting each offence made with the previous sanction of the central provident fund commissioner ..... provident fund commissioner which shows that the complainant was working as an enforcement office in the office of the regional provident fund commissioner, mangalore during the period 4.7.1986 to 30.6.1990 wherein the complaint came to be filed on 18.11.1989 on which date, he was functioning as the enforcement officer ..... officer, employees' provident funds, mangalore division being aggrieved of the common judgment passed in c.c. nos. 22445/89, 22446/89 and 22447/89 by the learned iv additional munsiff and jmfc, mangalore, dk dated 31.7.1996 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under section 14(1a), 14(1b) of the employees provident .....