Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Fazlu Rahman Ansari vs M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. . on 7 December, 2018

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thro. Its ... vs Shiv Gopal S/O Late Fateh Bahadur And ... on 19 February, 2025

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Fazlu Rahman Ansari vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others (Supra), has held that the High Court had ignored the conditions contained in Section 2(i)(e) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, which would cover the kind of employment by virtue of which the workman was rendering the services, even services through sub-contractors, therefore, the owner would be liable to make the payment of compensation awarded by the learned Compensation Commissioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Hari Prasad Kamkar & Ors on 28 November, 2023

In this regard, reference can be made to a decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Fazlu Rahman Ansari (supra) wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that "Section 2(1) (e) of the Act would cover the kind of employment by virtue of which the workman was rendering services and even services through sub-contractors are covered in the definition".
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Sh Rinku & Anr on 12 February, 2026

In this regard, reference can be made to a decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Fazlu Rahman Ansari (supra) wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that "Section 2(1) (e) of the Act would cover the kind of employment by virtue of which the workman was rendering services and even services through sub-contractors are covered in the definition".
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document

Raymond Showroom vs Sekar ... 1St on 29 August, 2024

17.In Fazlu Rahman Ansari's case (cited supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the injured was sub-contracted by the contractor to regularly work under M/s.Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that the injured therein was entitled to compensation from M/s.Delhi Metro Rail Corporation as principal employer. The facts of that case are deviant from the instant case as in the instant case, there is nothing Page No.11 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA NO.1927 OF 2022 available on record to show that the deceased was regularly employed under the second opposite party.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khitish Chakraborty vs The Chief Executive Officer on 11 April, 2022

The respondents contended before the High Court that Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2022.04.16 the son of the appellants was engaged as a mason by the 11:38:01 IST Reason: contractor when he met with the accident. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a ‘worker’ of the respondents. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to Section 12 of the Act and a judgment of this Court in Fazlu Rahman Ansari Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors cited in (2019) 13 SCC 806. In this case, this Court referred to Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act and held that it would cover any kind of employment by virtue of which workmen of any services including that of sub-contractors are covered by the definition.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1