Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 869 (3.19 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Chella Bharathamma & Ors on 21 September, 2004

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Om Prakash Yadav & Another on 25 May, 2011

"4. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held " considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Babita And Others on 25 May, 2011

"4. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held " considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Anita And Others on 8 November, 2012

"4. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held " considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - B Sapru - Full Document

M/S New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ghulfam Saifi And Others on 1 March, 2012

"4. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held " considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Y C Gupta - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Durgesh Nandini And Others on 29 February, 2012

"4. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held " considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Y C Gupta - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Basanti Devi And Others on 29 February, 2012

"4. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held " considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Y C Gupta - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Smt.Durgawati Devi And Others on 1 March, 2012

"4. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held " considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Y C Gupta - Full Document

Rameshwar Dass vs Suresh Kumar And Ors on 4 March, 2025

"In this insurer's appeal, learned counsel submitted that the offending vehicle being a truck (RJ-07-G-2333) did not have the requisite route permit to ply the vehicle on the route in question. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 (National Insurance Company Limited versus Challa Bharathamma and others).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Hansraj Ram And Others on 29 February, 2012

"4. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517, to establish that the claim of the insurance company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the insurance company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the insurance company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held " considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Y C Gupta - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jagbira And Others on 13 July, 2012

In the facts of the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma (supra), the auto-rickshaw plying on public place at the time of accident had no permit at all. At the time of the accident three persons were traveling in the vehicle, two of them lost their lives and one was seriously injured in the accident. The insurer resisted the claim on the ground that the insured had not obtained permit to ply the vehicle and therefore, in terms of the policy of the insurance the insurer had no liability. The Tribunal accepted the plea, however, the High Court held that the insurer was liable to indemnify the award on the ground that since the vehicle had no permit, so question of violation of any condition does not arise. On these facts, the Apex Court held that a person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-a-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. The Hon'ble Court directed the insurer to satisfy the award and liberty was give to realise the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, appellant cannot derive any benefit from this decision. The case is distinguished on facts.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next