Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 85 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003

Phool Chand Singh vs Ram Khelawan And Anr. on 13 September, 2004

12. The ratio laid down in the above case New India Assurance Company Limited v. C. Padma and Ors. applies with full force to the facts of the present case. During the pendency of appeal Sub-clause (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted. Presently there is no period of limitation for filing the claim petition in respect of the accident in question. The Supreme Court has noted that the Parliament realized grave injustice and injury caused to the heirs and legal representative of the victim of the accident, if the claim petition was rejected only on the ground of limitation. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court presently there is no period of limitation for filing the claim petition. As such if the claim petition is filed today in respect of the accident in question, the same is liable to be adjudicated upon on merits, the plea of limitation shall not be open to the opposite parties of the claim petition. It is also fairly settled that subsequent change in law during the pendency of appeal can be taken into account by the appellate court. Stretching that principle of law, in the present case, I am of the opinion that the claim petition cannot be thrown out as barred by time. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal can not be sustained.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Krishna - Full Document

Alamelu vs Amir Jan on 4 February, 2026

In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, I find that the the tribunal did not commit any illegality while deciding the issue no. 5 holding that the claim petition was filed well within the time because the limitation prescribed by the old Act was omitted and when the claim petition was presented in the year 2002, there was no limitation to present the said petition.
Bangalore District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Mishra And Another vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Cbi on 7 July, 2025

9. This Court noticed in C. Padma case [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma, (2003) 7 SCC 713 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1709] that, in a parallel instance of simpliciter repeal, Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury that had been caused to heirs of LRs of victims of accidents if their petitions were rejected only on the ground of limitation. This being the case, this Court found that a different intention had been expressed and, therefore, Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act would not in that situation apply."
Allahabad High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document

Ramratan vs Lakhan Singh on 8 September, 2025

And in C. Padma case [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma, (2003) 7 SCC 713 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1709] , the first conclusion drawn in SCC p. 718, para 12 was "... if otherwise the claim is found genuine...". We are of the considered view, that a claim raised before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, can be considered to be genuine, so long as it is a live and surviving claim. We are satisfied in accepting the declared position of law, expressed in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not as if, it can be open to all and sundry, to approach a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, to raise a claim for compensation, at any juncture, after the accident had taken place. The individual concerned, must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sakharam Bhoju Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 29 June, 2004

The Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Anr. has held that the benefit of amended provisions is to be given irrespective of the fact that the cause of action arose prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act or under old Act. The present case also would be governed by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said case with full force.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - B R Gavai - Full Document

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Gurubari & Ors on 14 June, 2012

Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the order passed by the court-below, it appears that the court-below has rightly and properly considered the entire issue/ preliminary objection raised by the insurance company in accordance with law. It appears that by way of amendment, limitation prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act has been taken away and para-12 of the judgment, which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the original claimants in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus C. Padma and another, reported in 2004(1) JCR 34 (SC), is relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, which is reproduced here-in-below:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - P P Bhatt - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next