Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)

November vs Km. Priti & Others on 10 November, 2025

22. On issue No. 9 regarding validity of insurance contract, although the car was insured in the name of deceased Manohar Lal, the Tribunal held that the policy was valid and in force from 26.12.2007 to 25.12.2008. The insurer had accepted premiums and issued policy documents; thus, it remained liable. The Tribunal referred to Darshan Lal v. New India Insurance Co. (2004 (4) SC 164) but distinguished it, holding the insurance company liable. Issue was decided against the insurer.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Purohit - Full Document

November vs Km. Priti & Others on 10 November, 2025

22. On issue No. 9 regarding validity of insurance contract, although the car was insured in the name of deceased Manohar Lal, the Tribunal held that the policy was valid and in force from 26.12.2007 to 25.12.2008. The insurer had accepted premiums and issued policy documents; thus, it remained liable. The Tribunal referred to Darshan Lal v. New India Insurance Co. (2004 (4) SC 164) but distinguished it, holding the insurance company liable. Issue was decided against the insurer.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Purohit - Full Document

November vs Km. Priti & Others on 10 November, 2025

22. On issue No. 9 regarding validity of insurance contract, although the car was insured in the name of deceased Manohar Lal, the Tribunal held that the policy was valid and in force from 26.12.2007 to 25.12.2008. The insurer had accepted premiums and issued policy documents; thus, it remained liable. The Tribunal referred to Darshan Lal v. New India Insurance Co. (2004 (4) SC 164) but distinguished it, holding the insurance company liable. Issue was decided against the insurer.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Purohit - Full Document
1