Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Guruanna Vedi And Anr. vs General Manager, Karnataka State Road ... on 10 April, 2001

L And T General Insurance Company ... vs Anubhai Sanjaybhai Singh on 14 November, 2025

7. On the other hand the legal position, as regards switching Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined from a petition from 163A to section 166 and vis-a-vis, appropriate would be to consider a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi and Another v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. and Another, 2001 ACJ 1528, the Court held that an application for permission to amend the claim petition in order to switch to petition under Section 163A from the claim petition under Section 166 is permissible, by observing as under:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Salindro Devi And Anr vs Thakur Dass And Anr on 28 September, 2023

In taking this view, we are also supported by the decisions of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Guruanna Vadi v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans.Corpn., 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka). It is held in the said decision that the claimant can move the Court for amendment of his claim petition filed under Section 166 to that of a petition under Section 163-A at any stage of the proceedings and it would be for the concerned Court to pass an order on that application in accordance with law, provided he satisfies other conditions such as the income factor etc.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Kawaldar Yadav vs Amaldar Yadav on 1 November, 2007

8 I am also supported in my view by a judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, while my Lord was heading a division bench in Kernataka High Court. MY Lord also referred Guruanna Vadi and another Vs. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. And another reported in 2001 ACJ 1528. There is a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well in this regard. Reliance with the help of analogy is also placed on Delhi Trasnport Corporation and another V/s Nirmala and others reported in 2003 ACJ 1300.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Branch Manager, Nic Ltd vs Master Suraj Subba And Ano on 2 August, 2013

(iii) Undeniably the Act, in particular Chapter XI thereof was introduced as a benevolent piece of legislation for amelioration of the helpless conditions faced by the victims of motor vehicle accidents. While granting reliefs 15 MAC App. No.01 of 2013 under the Act, Courts are not to be bound by mere technicalities but would adopt a liberal approach by giving the law a wider construction and meaning that would favour the victims. The decision in Guruanna Vadi (supra) was rendered in a case where an application under Section 166 was switched to Section 163A making it permissible to notionally scale down the income to Rs.40,000/- to bring the Claim under Section 163A. While dealing with this aspect a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a reference held as under:-
Sikkim High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 6 - S P Wangdi - Full Document

Govindbhai Chhaganbhai Bhil (Rana) ... vs Dilawarkhan Sahebkhan Baloch on 29 August, 2023

Through heirs Ranjan, 2004 (1) GLH 246, the decision of Larger Bench of Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi v. General Manager, KSRTC, 2001 ACJ 1528, Divisional Manager, U nited India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunita & Ors., 2019 ACJ 109 and Parulben Nareshbhai Rana v. Punjabhai Parsottamdas Rana (Died) & Ors. rendered in Special Civil Application no. 3612 of 2019 to submit that conversion of claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) is permissible even at the appellate stage.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Narshiji Nagaji Majirana vs Mangilal Amturam Bishnoi on 2 December, 2003

8.3 In Guruanna Vadi & Anr. vs. The General Manager, KSRTC & Anr., AIR 2001 Karnataka 275 a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court speaking through Hon'ble Mr Justice Ashok Bhan (as His Lordship then was) held that the claimant can move for amendment of his claim petition under Section 166 to that of a petition under Section 163-A at any stage of the proceedings. The Full Bench observed as under:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - M S Shah - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Smt. Madhu Sharma And Ors. on 9 April, 2003

12. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to draw support from the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and Ors., 2001 (2) AWC 1447 (SC) : 2001 (2) TAC 312 and in the case of Guruanna Wadi and Anr. v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Anr., 2001 (3) TAC 329. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions cannot come to the rescue of the applicant as in these cases, there was no occasion to consider the effect of the deletion of the provisions contained in Section 163A and the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act vide the Amending Act No. 30 of 2001.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - K N Ojha - Full Document

Smt. Manjula Devi Widow Of Awadhesh ... vs Commercial Motors, Chhedi Lal Son Of ... on 2 March, 2007

44. In this connection, it is pointed out that it is well settled that the words of "remedial statute" must be construed as far as they reasonably admit, that relief contemplated by the statute shall not be denied to the persons intended to be relieved. It is also well recognized principle of interpretation that when a statute is passed for the purpose of protecting the public against some evil or abuse keeping in view the dominant object of the statute departure from general rule of construction of statute has sometime been made. The court should adopt construction, which advances, fulfills and furthers object of the Act rather than which would defeat the same and rendered the protection illusory. In our opinion, there can be no doubt about that the provisions of statute contained in Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act are remedial and beneficial in nature in the sense that it confer new favour or remedy to the claimant and the remedial Act are generally enacted to improve and facilitate remedies already existing for enforcement of rights and for redress of wrongs or injuries as well as to correct defects, mistakes and omission in a former law. Since the statute in question in our opinion, is also social security statute and intended to facilitate the remedy for expeditious disposal of claims inasmuch as intended to cure mischief and defect in existing procedure, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act have retrospective operation and covers the cases even pending on the date of commencement of the said provisions. For aforestated reasons with all respect to the Hon'ble Full Bench of Karnataka High Court, we could not persuade ourself to agree with the view taken by Full Bench in Guruanna Wadi's case (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next