Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.18 seconds)
Documents citing Urmila Devi vs Branch Manager, National Insurance ... on 30 January, 2020

Branch Manager vs Anita Devi & Others on 25 August, 2021

Learned counsel for the claimant has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Urmila Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2020) 11 SCC 316 and has submitted that the Cross-Objection may be decided on merits, as there is no restrictions in filing cross-objection or appeal on the basis of co-joint reading of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 249 of Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992 and Order XLI Rule 22 C.P.C. Para-21 to 25 may also profitably be quoted hereunder:-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K P Deo - Full Document

K.K.Sunil & Others vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd on 23 September, 2021

In view of the categoric declaration of law in Urmila Devi (supra), Manojkumar (supra) is no longer good law. Therefore, I hold that even though the appellant has preferred the appeals only challenging its liability, there is no legal impediment in the cross-objectors filing the appeal challenging the finding of negligence and seeking for enhancement of compensation. I answer Question No.(ii) in favour of the cross-objectors and hold that the cross-objections are maintainable in law. Question No.(iii)
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document

Prasanta Kumar Sahoo vs Charulata Sahu . on 29 March, 2023

Further the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 upon the judgment of Puspa Devi (supra) is distinguished by defendant no.2 counsel stating that compromise petition is being typed in English. Further the same is not signed by defendantno.2. Defendant no.1 with a view to deprive allotment of share assigned in favour of defendant no.2 by the trial court in respect of the suit schedule properties in the absence of signing the compromise petition by defendant no.2 and there is no special 'vakalatnama' executed in favour of her lawyer, the said compromise petition is unlawful and the same could not have been accepted by the first appellate court In the Impugned judgment and modified the trial court judgment. Therefore, the cross-objection/appeal filed by defendant no.2 has to be allowed by setting aside the compromise recorded by the first appellate court In the Impugned judgment by modifying trial court judgment in relation to the share of the defendant no.2 allotted in respect of the suit schedule properties. Having set 50 aside the said compromise, as recorded in the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court, the trial court judgment is restored with regard to the share assigned by him in favour in of defendant no.2 In respect of suit schedule properties. Accordingly the cross-objection of the second defendant is allowed by answering the aforesaid point no.(iii) in her favour.” (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 5 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sohan Lal (Father) & Ors. on 19 March, 2024

In particular, reference was made to Benson George vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.3, Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.4 and R.K. Malik &Anr. vs. Kiran Pal &Ors.5Furthermore, the appellant urges that Section 1716 of the M.V. Act does not prescribe any fixed rate of interest and provides the Tribunal with a discretion to award interest while being mindful of economic factors such as inflation rate, the rate of interest as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India at the time of the accident, amongst other things. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding interest @9% when the maximum interest awarded could have been @7.5% in light of the relevant RBI guidelines on the subject.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Madhu Kumari And Ors on 4 September, 2024

19. Three-judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Devi & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2020 (1) T.A.C. 718 (SC); AIR 2020 SC 709 held that cross-objection of the claimant is maintainable. Taking any cross-objection to the decree or order impugned is the exercise of right of appeal, though such right is exercised in the form of taking cross- Patna High Court MA No.12 of 2015 dt.05-09-2024 13/19 objection. The connection in that if the Insurance Company in the appeal challenged on the ground only restricted to denial of its liability to make the payment of compensation on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy by the vehicle owner or driver of the vehicle, then also cross-objection at the behest of the claimants in the shape of appeal would also be tenable. It is well settled that if the Insurance Company had challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant, there is no impediment for the claimant to file cross- objection in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S D Mishra - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Madhu Kumari And Ors on 5 September, 2024

19. Three-judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Devi & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2020 (1) T.A.C. 718 (SC); AIR 2020 SC 709 held that cross-objection of the claimant is maintainable. Taking any cross-objection to the decree or order impugned is the exercise of right of appeal, though such right is exercised in the form of taking cross- Patna High Court MA No.12 of 2015 dt.05-09-2024 13/19 objection. The connection in that if the Insurance Company in the appeal challenged on the ground only restricted to denial of its liability to make the payment of compensation on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy by the vehicle owner or driver of the vehicle, then also cross-objection at the behest of the claimants in the shape of appeal would also be tenable. It is well settled that if the Insurance Company had challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant, there is no impediment for the claimant to file cross- objection in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S D Mishra - Full Document

Sherry Joseph vs Thomas Jose @ Tomy on 30 January, 2025

12. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Devi (supra) held that any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, apart from supporting the finding in his favour, is also entitled to take any cross objection to the decree which he could have filed by way of appeal, I am constrained to hold that the Cross-objection filed by the insurer in this case is maintainable.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next