Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 16 of 16 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs R.Mahalingam R1 In Cma.2552/03 & on 30 August, 2012

Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2021

No wonder, this Court, vide dated 20/7/2015 in Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins Co. Ltd. vs E Priya (CMA No. 1298/2015) and in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajesh (CMA No. 428/2016 dated 11/3/2016), has mandated the use of Digital transfer or NEFT/RTGS transfer of compensation payable by insurance companies and transportations to be deposited into the accounts of the courts directly and also disbursement of compensation to claimants/victims also by a similar transfer to their bank accounts. The claimants are required to furnish as part of the claim Signature Not Verified FAO 842/2003 Page 15 of 62 Digitally signed by:RAJENDER SINGH KARKI Signing Date:13.01.2021 18:54:39 documents, their bank account details and even PAN Card and (where they are possessed of it) and this enables Direct Bank Transfer to the accounts of the claimants/victims. The claimants/victims get to handle the compensation sums by themselves and exercise full control of it, without fear of ‗leakage' which was rampant in this jurisdiction. In fact, this Court feels that be it a motor accident claim or a land acquisition claim or even a matrimonial dispute or any litigation involving the need for deposit and disbursement, time may have come to digitize the operations for easy and smooth transfer and an open, transparent regime. Sunlight, they say, is the sure and certain disinfectant. It may be a fit and proper circumstance for the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Court administration to come up with a comprehensive directive for implementing this Direct Benefit or Bank transfer regime, across all jurisdictions involving and requiring similar deposit of sums and disbursement of it akin to motor accident claim jurisdiction and also expedite the E-court Fee regime and possibly an E filing of cases too. This suggestion is placed with utmost respect before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate consideration.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 1363 - J R Midha - Full Document

M/S.United India Assurance vs Tmt.J.Chithra @ Mary Jeyachithra on 12 March, 2021

In support of the contentions regarding the maintainability of the appeal for non-deposit of the award amount, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants referred a judgment in the case of Oriental http://www.judis.nic.in 6/15 C.M.A.No.2113 of 2016 Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai-108 Vs. R. Mahalingam, reported in (2012) 2 TNMAC 750 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

K.T.Padmanaban vs C.Palani on 19 August, 2015

3. Before going into the main issue on facts the first aspect to be considered in the issue, relating to maintainability of this appeal as raised by the claimant, for want of compliance of Third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by enclosing along with the Memorandum of Appeal, a certificate issued by the Commissioner for appeal, that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order, on appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent claimant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provision of law, which makes it clear that no appeal by an employer against the order awarding lump sum compensation shall lie unless the Memorandum of Appeal is accompanied by the certificate of the Commissioner that the appellant has deposited with him the amount ordered to be payable by him. In this case, admittedly, no such deposit was made and no such certificate was enclosed along with the Memorandum of Appeal. As a matter of fact, the value of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in the Memorandum of Grounds, is mentioned as incapable of valuation, which is totally incorrect. The value of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the value of the impugned award and the same is mentioned as incapable of valuation, only to escape the liability of complying with the Third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has, at this juncture, cited the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. R. Mahalingam, reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 750, wherein the learned Single Judge has, in paragraph 10 has referred to the non-compliance of the mandatory requirement under Third Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act and has, in paragraph 21, held the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, for such non-compliance to be not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - K B Vasuki - Full Document
Previous   1 2