Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 572 (4.09 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 August, 2009

M/S. Sks Ispat And Power Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 18 March, 2026

f. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Luxra Enterprises (P) Ltd and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri Buchiyyamma Rice Mill, where this Court relied on Sri Venkateswara Syndicate (supra) to observe that a surveyor's report may be rejected only due to the report containing inherent defects, it being arbitrary, excessive, and exaggerated, or any such cogent reasons before the appointment of another surveyor.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sks Ispat And Power Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 18 March, 2026

f. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Luxra Enterprises (P) Ltd and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri Buchiyyamma Rice Mill, where this Court relied on Sri Venkateswara Syndicate (supra) to observe that a surveyor's report may be rejected only due to the report containing inherent defects, it being arbitrary, excessive, and exaggerated, or any such cogent reasons before the appointment of another surveyor.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mehta Watch Industries vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 2 August, 2016

In  Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (supra),  the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that non consideration of material facts by the surveyor could be a ground for insurance company to appoint another surveyor by conducting fresh survey. It is therefore, justified not to place reliance on the report of the said surveyor, since the violation of the terms and condition of the policy is proved from the material on record.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sonia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 13 March, 2015

14.     The State Commission, in the impugned order observed that the appointment of Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Director, M/s. Consolidated Surveyor Private Limited was illegal as it was in violation of section 64 UM (3) of Insurance Act, 1938.  We, however, find no reason to agree with this conclusion of the State Commission, relying upon the judgment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case, "Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance company Limited" [2009 (8) SCC 507], where the Hon'ble Apex Court held in unequivocal terms that there was no prohibition in the Insurance Act, 1938 for appointment of a second surveyor by the Insurance Company, but while doing so, the Insurance Company had to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first surveyor.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Super Trading Corporation vs The Senior Manager on 24 June, 2025

Therefore, the initial Investigation Officer had found short cut method to sabotage the investigation as the claim itself to be a false claim. The subsequent Investigation Officer Yakoolam had detailed report under Ex.B-11 based on which the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded stating 'undetectable' which is reflected in the Surveyor reports of Maruti Services. The conduct of the Insurance Company not believing the Surveyors appointed by them who are competent to conduct such survey and find out the truth is found unacceptable in the light of the reported decision relied by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document

Shirdi Idustries Ltd vs New India Insurance Company on 9 December, 2025

f. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Luxra Enterprises (P) Ltd (2019) 6 SCC 36 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri Buchiyyamma Rice Mill (2020) 12 SCC 105, where this Court relied on Sri Venkateswara Syndicate (supra) to observe that a Surveyor's report may be rejected only due to the report containing inherent defects, it being arbitrary, excessive, and exaggerated, or any such cogent reasons before the appointment of another Surveyor.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S C.K. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. on 25 May, 2017

"15. Learned Counsel for the opposite party placed reliance on III (2009) CPJ 81 (SC) : II (2010) SLT 664 :  (2009) 8 SCC 507, Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr., in which it was held by Apex Court that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64-UM of the Insurance Act permits an insurer to obtain a second or further report where considered appropriate or expedient in the circumstances of the case based upon which the claim could be settled for a different amount than as assessed earlier. In the same judgment it has also been observed that insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of the surveyor is not acceptable to the insurer, may be for the reason, if there are inherent defects, if it is found to be arbitrary, excessive, exaggerated, etc., it must specify cogent reasons without which it is not free to appoint the second surveyor or surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. It was further observed that for any reason, the insurer is of the view that certain material facts ought to have been taken into consideration while framing a report by the surveyor and if it is not done, it can certainly depute another surveyor for the purpose of conducting a fresh survey to estimate the loss suffered by the insured. It was also observed that reports of surveyors are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next