Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Supdt. Of Post Offices And Ors. vs Pratap Ghelabhai Maru And Ors. on 14 October, 1985

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... vs Smt. Kadarbi, Major And Others on 11 October, 1991

The learned Advocate for the claimants invited our attention to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajkot v. Pratap G. Maru, 1987 ACJ 674, with reference to the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident with which the deceased and the injured were in no way connected as the employees and against whom no claim could have been made under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This is what has been observed at page 676 in the said decision:
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... vs Kadarbi And Others on 11 October, 1991

The learned advocate for the claimants invited our attention to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in superintendent of Post Offices v. Pratap G. Maru [1987] ACJ 674, with reference to the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident with which the deceased and the injured were in no way connected as the employee and against whom no claim could have been made under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This is what has been observed at page 676 in the said decision.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Heirs Of Dinesh Maganlal Mehta vs Mahila Gruh Udyog Lijjat Papad & on 7 April, 2016

On   the   other   hand,   learned   advocate   Mr.   Shah   has   drawn  attention to the decisions of this Court in the case of Superintendent   of Post Offices, Rajkot & Ors., v. Pratap Ghelabhai Maru & Ors.,  reported in 1987 ACJ 674 (para 3) in the case of Nasimbanu Wd/o.   Sirajuddin Amruddin Kazi & Ors., v. Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir   &  Ors.,  reported in  2005 (2) GLR 1476  and in the case of   United   India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Fataben Jamalbhai  reported in 2009   (2) GLR 1450. Distinguishing Mastan's case (supra), learned advocate  Mr. Shah referred para   4 of the said judgment and has pointed out  that unlike the present case in that case, only one vehicle was involved  Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Apr 09 02:51:55 IST 2016 C/FA/2285/2015 ORDER and the above referred decision of this Court shows that the claimants  claim   petition   for   compensation   under   the  Motor   Vehicles   Act  and  Workmen's Compensation Act are maintainable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R D Kothari - Full Document
1