Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing R.B. Moondra And Co. vs Mst. Bhanwari And Anr. on 22 April, 1969

Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. ... vs Rana Kiritsinh Jatubhabhai on 16 August, 1996

The case before this Court was arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and question was to whether Workmen's Compensation Commissioner can proceed against the Insurance Company under the Act, 1923 or not. This Court held that the insurance company by legal fiction is a judgment debtor and statutory insurance coverage of Driver is there for employer's liability under the Act, 1923 to the employee for compensation due to injury or fatal case. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has jurisdiction to pass order against the insurance company. View taken by the Rajasthan High court in the case of R.B. Moondra and Company vs. Mst. Bhanwari is contrary to the view taken by this Court in the case aforesaid. In this case the Court has considered the provisions of the section 19(1) of the Act, 1923 and observed that it is wide enough to confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner to determine a question arising in any proceedings under the Act, 1923 as to the liability of any person to pay compensation. It is not restricted only to determination of liability of employer to pay compensation. Of course, the liability is an absolute liability under the Act, 1923 and the scheme which has to be determined by the Commissioner. But this liability of any person, therefore, even persons who may have to pay indemnity or who are by a legislative fiction treated as in the same position as an employer would have their absolute liability determined only by the Commissioner and to that extent jurisdiction of the civil court under section 19(2) of the Act, 1923 shall be excluded.
Gujarat High Court Cites 122 - Cited by 0 - S K Keshote - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Bismilla Bi And Ors. on 2 February, 1983

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the case-law cited, I am of opinion that the submission made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted for reasons stated hereinafter. All these decisions have considered the scope of Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as also Section 95 and Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. However, with respect, I am unable to subscribe to the view taken in the single Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in R. B. Moondra and Co. v. Mst. Bhanwari, AIR 1970 Raj 111.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Nansingh And Ors. on 28 February, 1983

Therefore, I am unable to agree with the interpretation tried to be put forth on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the widow alone, if she is alive, is entitled to file the claim petition even though she may have remarried, as held in the Rajasthan decision, R. B. Moondra and Co. v. Mst. Bhanwari, AIR 1970 Raj 111, which does not lay down the law that the widow alone, in preference to the other dependants, is entitled to file the petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramlal Jawahirlal vs Smt. Leela Bai And Ors. on 27 July, 1972

13. The facts of the case reported in R.B. Moondra and Co. v. Mst. Bhanwari and Anr. , were also totally different. In that case the deceased was employed as a driver of the appellant's truck used for the purpose of carrying petrol in a tank. On the previous day he had reported to the appellant that the tank was leaking and so water was put in it for detecting the place from where it leaked. The deceased was asked by the appellant to enter the tank to see from where it leaker1. Accordingly the deceased entered the tank which had no penal in it, but had been partly filled with water, and for the purpose of detecting the place from where it leaked, he lighted a match stick, as a result of which it caught fire and the deceased received burns due to which he died. It was in these circumstances that This Court held that the accident arose out of the deceased's employment and the act of lighting the match stick, even if it be held as a rash or negligent act, would not debar his widow from claiming compensation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... vs Smt. Nani Bala Devi And Anr. on 5 January, 1987

These provisions show, according to the learned counsel, that it is the employer who is to pay the compensation provided for by this Act and who can in the situations visualised by Sections 12 and 13, get himself indemnified by the persons mentioned in these sections. It is in case of insolvency of the employer or his making composition with his creditors or where the employer is a company which is being wound up, that the insurer becomes directly liable to pay the compensation. To fortify his submissions Shri Bhatacharyya has relied on these decisions : (1) R.B. Moondra & Co. v. Bhanwari, AIR 1970 Rajasthan 111; (2) Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Govind Singh, 1972 Ace CJ 137 : (1973 Lab IC 1066) (All); (3) K.P. Kurian v. Managing Partner, Hindusthan Shipping Company, 1975 Lab IC 130 (Ker) (4) G. Sreedharan v. Hindusthan Ideal Insurance Corporation, 1976 Lab 1C 732 (Andh Pra); (5) New India Assurance Company v. Parameshwari, (1976) 32Fac LR 371 (Ker) and (6) Charag Chemical Industries v. R. G. Ganesan, 1981 Ace CJ 532 : (1989 Lab IC NOC 28) (Mad).
Gauhati High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 14 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

The Oriental Fire And General Insurance ... vs Nani Bala Devi And Anr. on 5 January, 1987

These provisions show, according to the learned Counsel, that it is the employer who is to pay the compensation provided for by this Act and who can in the situations visualised by Sections 12 and 13, get himself indemnified by the persons mentioned in these sections. It is in case of insolvency of the employer or his making composition with his creditors or where the employer is a company which is being wound up, that the insurer becomes directly liable to pay the compensation. To fortify his submissions Shri Bhattacharyya has relied on these decisions: (1) R.V. Moondra & Co. v. Bhanwari AIR 1970 Rajasthan 111 (2) Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Govind Singh 1972 ACJ 137; 3) K.P. Kurian v. Managing Partner, Hindusthan Shipping Co., 1975 LIC 130; (4) G. Sreedharan v. Hindusthan Ideal Insurance Corporation, 1976 LIC 732; (5) New India Assurance Co. v. Parameshwari, 1976 FLR 371; and (6) Charag Chemical Industries v. R.G. Ganesan, 1981 ACJ 532.
Gauhati High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1   2 3 Next