Jorjibhai Bhurabhai Makwana Decd.Thro'his Heirs & Ors. Versus Vs Shantilal @ Satishkumar Bhogilal Damor & Ors.
.... t pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of the 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward o ...
Gujarat High Court
Shaik Saleem, Ranga Reddy Vs Dharmendra Sejwar
.... 11. In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries, the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another MACD 2011 (SC) 33 held as under: “5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages ...
High Court For The State Of Telangana:: At Hyderabad
Dintakurthi Naga Kamala And 3 Others Vs B Srinivasulu And 2 Others
.... ecting the claims on technical grounds. 25) The opinion of this Court is fortified by the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2155 which are extracted hereunder: 6. Before the scope of sub-section (3) of ...
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amaravati
State Of Arunachal Pradesh Vs Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas & Anr
.... human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of oth ...
Supreme Court Of India
Ramesh Sharma Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors
.... e financer and if that would be allowed to happen the interest of the financer would be jeopardized in two fields i.e., he is not getting the installment against the repayment of the loan amount side by side the liability by making payment of the tax will also be casted upon the it and therefore ...
Jharkhand High Court
Mahila Budha Devi Vs Dinesh Singh
.... 1994, then it was held that Insurance Company was not liable. But in the present case accident admittedly took place on 29.11.04, therefore, ratio in the case of Asha Rani will not be applicable as the accident took place after the amendment of 1994 and thus, it cannot be said that when there is ...
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench)
M/S. Tata Motors Limited Vs State Of Jharkhand And Others
.... d by a dealer who has paid the tax under Section 6 of the Act as well, however, for delayed payment, penalty and interest are imposed which were challenged by the said appellants in the High Court and the High Court has dismissed the case of the appellants vide its judgment dated July 22, 2003 f ...
Supreme Court Of India
Sangam Lal Kesarwani And Another Vs Smt. Soghra Devi And 3 Others
.... judicial order to become final. The aforesaid amending Act shall be of no help to such claimant. The reason being that a judicial order saying that such petition of claim was barred by limitation has attained finality. But that principle will not govern cases where the dispute as to whether petition ...
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Yamuna Singh Vs The State of Bihar and Others
.... that the permit holders opting for the State of Bihar under the National permit scheme, granted by a competent transport authority of other State under sub-section (12) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall be required to pay in respect thereof a sum to be fixed by the State Government ...
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
.... ll have to be in charge of the vehicle. The very concept of infringement or violation of the promise that the expression "breach" carries within itself induces an inference that the violation or infringement on the part of the promisor must be a wilful infringement or violation. If the insured is no ...
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Get In Touch With Us
We are here to help. Want to learn more about our services? Please get in touch, we'd love to hear from you!
