Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(2001)ACC139; 2002ACJ85; 2001(2)ALLMR75; 2001(3)BomCR269
..... filed separate written statement and denied claimants allegations made in the claim petition. the opponent no. 5 also set up the defence that the deceased was unauthorised and gratuitous passenger travelling in the truck and he was not covered under the insurance policy. the opponent no. 5 insurer also submitted that opponent no. 4 driver was not holding ..... leak each applied a naked light to a gas pipe in turn and one of them caused an explosion, they were held to be joint tortfeasors but where two ships collided because of the independent acts of negligence of each of them, and one of them, without further negligence, collided with a third, it was held that ..... extra premium having been paid, the owner of a goods vehicles can claim indemnification from the insurer just because once in a year the goods vehicle had carried a passenger for hire or reward along with the goods. this would perhaps robe the third proviso dealing with coverage of contractual liability lame. 22. thus, to find out .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(2)ALT8(SC); [2001]104CompCas29(SC); (2001)1MLJ184(SC); 2000(7)SCALE724
..... in that suit but has not taken any other step in the said proceedings. the respondent, it is said, is further declining illegally to refund claims of passengers and directing them to the appellants. this was not tenable. the respondent is also not restoring the commissions received. petitioner gave registered notice on 25.8.99 ..... some cases felt that they could be decided to cut short litigation and waste of time, where the documents are clear enough. but, subsequently the three judge bench in konkan railway corporation ltd. v. mehul construction co. ( : air2000sc2821 ) has taken the view that the chief justice or his nominee is performing an administrative duty and ..... at this stage and it is for the arbitrator alone to decide the same. (no doubt, the question has now been referred for fresh consideration in m/s. konkan construction corporation ltd. v. rani construction pvt. ltd. : (2000)2scc388 . in view of the said three judge judgment, i decline deciding these preliminary issues and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)139CTR(Guj)428; [1997]226ITR781(Guj)
..... (annexure 'e' to the petition) and has submitted that the gold as aforesaid can also be brought as a carrier. it is hardly relevant whether the gold belonged to the passenger or not. according to him, the action of the it authorities is contrary to the above referred gold import scheme. once the gold has been brought in accordance with the .....
Tag this Judgment!