New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Rfeeka Sultan And Ors. on 26 September, 2000
In Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment reported in Sarjubai v. Gurudip Singh and Ors. (1994 ACJ 997), the Division Bench said :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.56 seconds)Documents citing
Sarjubai vs Gurudip Singh And Ors. on 2 September, 1994
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Rafeeka Sultan And Ors. on 26 September, 2000
In paras 7 and 8 of the judgment reported in Sarjubai v. Gurudip Singh (supra), the Division Bench said:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ramdas Patil And Ors. on 9 August, 1999
17. This Court has held in a series of cases, one of such is reported in Sarjubai v. Gurudip Singh, 1994 Ace CJ 997, that Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is a "Court Subordinate to the High Court" within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is, therefore, amenable to revisional jurisdiction. The Constitutional power of this Court under Art. 227, of exercising superintendence over all subordinate Courts and Tribunals can also be invoked in cases where by awarding extremely high amount of compensation the Tribunal has acted arbitrarily in exercise of its jurisdiction.
Sudha Jain vs Mahendra Kumar Jain And Ors. on 29 September, 2005
In reply to this argument the counsel for the respondent have relied on number of judgments of this High Court including Mangilal v. Parasram 1970 ACJ 86 (MP), which is a Full Bench decision of this Court; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Member, M.A.C.T., Lakhimpur ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Celine ; Sarjubai v. Gurudip Singh , counsel for the insurance company has also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotsnaben Sudhirbhai Patel .
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Abeda Begum And Ors. on 16 June, 2005
In the case of Sarjubai v. Gurudip Singh , a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court had held as follows (para 13):
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Renu Rastogi And Ors. on 28 August, 2003
The decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sarjubai's case, 1994 ACJ 997 (MP), that where the compensation is shockingly excessive the Tribunal's award is liable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or in revision is in conflict with the Apex Court decision in Sadhana Lodh. The observations in Sadhana Lodh about availability of the remedy of revision are in reference to cases where no appeal is provided. The reasoning that another remedy can be availed of as the scope of the statutory appeal is limited has not been accepted by the Apex Court as sound.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Masto Devi & Others on 21 March, 2025
); National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another vs. Asha Devi &
another reported in 1997(2) T.A.C.513 (MP); Sri Vidya Sagar Singh vs.
Shanti Devi and others reported in 1994(2) T.A.C. 295 (Patna);
Sarjubai vs. Gurudip Singh and others reported in 1995(1) T.A.C. 114
(M.P.); and New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Raghubir and others
reported in 1994 ACJ 987 (MP).
1