Urmila vs Sushma & Ors. on 18 March, 2019
In this context, further
observations of Full Bench of this Court in Anand Sarup Sharma (supra)
to the following effect are enlightening:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 48 (0.81 seconds)Documents citing
Anand Sarup Sharma vs P.P. Khurana And Others on 28 September, 1988
Sabir Hussain vs Maya Bai And Ors. on 14 November, 1995
Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Anand Sarup Sharma v. P.P. Khurana 1989 ACJ 577 (Delhi), also held that once the sale is completed after payment of price and delivery of possession the provision of Sections 22 and 31 of 'the Act' do not postpone the transfer. The Full Bench relied upon number of decisions in support of its conclusions as given in para 27 of its judgment:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Top Bahadur And Ors. on 1 January, 1996
In Anand Samp Sharma v. P.P. Khurana 1989 ACJ 577 (Delhi), the High Court of Delhi held that insurance company cannot be compelled to indemnify a person with whom it had no contract. After the sale, the insured was left with no insurable interest in the vehicle and under the terms of contract of insurance, the company was not liable to indemnify the transferee. Registration of the vehicle in the name of the transferee was not necessary for the purpose of completing the sale since sale takes place in accordance with the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. As to whether the insurance company could take up this defence in view of Section 96(2), the court held that the company could take this kind of defence.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Bimla And Ors. on 11 April, 1994
In 1989 Acc CJ 577 : (AIR 1989 Delhi 88) (FB) (Anand Sarup Sharma v. P.P. Khurana), the High Court of Delhi held that Insurance Company cannot be compelled to indemnify a person with whom it had no contract. After the sale, the insured was left with no insurable interest in the vehicle and under the terms of contract of insurance, the Company was not liable to indemnify the transferee. Registration of the vehicle in the name of the transferee was not necessary for the purpose of completing the sale since sale takes place in accordance with the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. As to whether the Insurance Company could take up this defence in view of Section 96 (2), the Court held that the Company could take this kind of defence.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Neena Goel And Ors. on 31 January, 1991
16. As far as this Court is concerned, the proposition of law with regard to the aforesaid provisions, as contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, stands concluded by the Full Bench in Anand Sarup Sharma v. P.P. Khurana, (supra). In fact, there is no controversy with regard to the legal position. But, the question which arises for determination is whether it has been proved by evidence that the offending car had been transferred by the insured to the third person prior to the date of accident. Though it is immaterial for this purpose whether on the date of accident the vehicle stood registered in the name of the insured.
Sidharth Khetrapal vs Mohd.Hanif & Ors. on 14 September, 2017
In this context, further
observations of Full Bench of this Court in Anand Sarup Sharma
(supra) to the following effect are enlightening:-
Jeenat Khatoon vs Karmabir on 1 July, 2025
The full bench of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Anand Sarup Sharma vs P.P. Khurana (Supra) has
observed that :
Nirmal Rani Sibbal And Ors. vs S. Amarjit Singh And Ors. on 3 November, 2003
3. The Delhi High Court in Anand Swaroop Sharma Vs. P.P. Khurana 1989 ACJ 577 had, however, it did not agree with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid judgment and held that the third party liability of the insurer comes to an end on transfer of vehicle by the insured to someone else unless the procedure prescribed for transfer is fulfillled.
Smt. Jaya Ben And 4 Ors. vs Gaffar Khan And Ors. on 5 July, 2000
39. A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Anand Sarup Sharma v. P.P. Khurana , and a Full Bench of Kamataka High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mallikarjun II (1990) ACC 547 (FB) : AIR 1990 Karnataka 166, had held the insurance policy lapse when the insured vehicle was transferred and no application/intimation as prescribed under Section 103-A of the Act was made/ given and consequently the liability of Insurance Company ceased in respect of such vehicle.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishnakumar Kittu Nair on 20 February, 2001
The decisions of the Full Bench in Shantilal's case (supra) and the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Anand Sarup's case (supra) were followed by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Mallikanj's case (supra) by the Full Bench of that High Court and the Supreme Court in Govindan's case expressly overruled the Full Bench decisions of the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. It therefore follows that the liability of the respondent No.1 as the registered owner of the motor vehicle continued even after the motor vehicle was sold to the respondent No.5 till the provisions of section 31 were complied with on 9-11-1983 and therefore, on the date of the accident i.e. 22-5-1983, the respondent No.1 as the registered owner of the vehicle was liable for the accident caused due to the use of the motor vehicle by virtue of the purchaser being authorised to use it after it was sold on 27-4-1983.