Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing S. Sanjiva Shetty vs Anantha And Ors. on 26 March, 1976

Tinsukhia Flour Mills, Tinsukhia ... vs Shiv Prakash And Ors. on 23 April, 1979

In Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha (AIR 1976 Kant 146) (supra) a 10 year old boy who happened to be sitting on the road side was involved in the accident by a motor car as a result of which the right leg of the boy above the Knee had to be amputated. After making a reference to a few decided cases, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable and thereby reduced the amount awarded by the Tribunal by Rs. 15,000/-. It may be pointed out that in that case the Tribunal had not referred to any other material or data for the determination of the general damages at Rs. 40,000/-, and it was observed that "having regard to the resources of the boy's parents and the circumstances in which they were placed and the paucity of evidence in regard thereto", the award of Rs. 40.000/- was excessive.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Tinsukhia Flour Mills Tinsukhia ... vs Shiv Prakash And Ors. on 28 April, 1979

In Sanjiva Shettv v. Anantha and Ors. (Supra), a 10 year old boy happened to be sitting on the road side was involved in the accident by a motor car as a result of which the right leg of the boy above the knee had to be amputated After making a reference to a few decided cases, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable and thereby reduced the amount awarded by the Tribunal by Rs. 15,000/-. It may be pointed out that in that case the Tribunal had not referred to any other material or data for the determination of the general damages at Rs. 40,000/-, and it was observed that "having regard to the resources of the boy's parents and the circumstances in which they were placed and the paucity of evidence in regard thereto", the award of Rs. 40,000/- was excessive.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The United Fire And General Insurance ... vs P. Parvathamma on 19 December, 1980

This case was referred to with approval by a Full Bench of this Karnataka High Court reported in S. Sanjiva v. Anantha, on the question of its retrospectivity. But, neither of these cases considered the present question whether Section 96 (2) of the Act limits the defences open to an insurer to those grounds specified and enumerated in that section. These cases are, therefore, of no relevance to the present case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

United India Fire And General Insurance ... vs Pogaku Parvathamma And Anr. on 19 December, 1980

This case was referred to with approval by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in S. Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha , on the question of its retrospectivity. But, neither of these cases considered the present question whether s. 96(2) of the Act limits the defences open to an insurer to hose grounds specified and enumerated in that section. These cases are, therefore, of no relevance to the present case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Olivia Vaz And Ors. on 19 September, 2003

8. We endorse the view taken by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha. The Full Bench overruled the judgment which is under appeal in the instant case and held that the material date for ascertaining the extent of liability of the insurer is the date of the accrual of the cause of action for a claim arising out of an Accident, which in general would be the date of the Accident and, therefore, the insurer's liability arising out of an Accident which happens after March, 2,1970, has to be determined on the basis of the amended provisions of Section 95(2)(a) of the Act, even though the policy of insurance may have been issued prior to the date of the amendment, that is, prior to March, 2,1970.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R J Kochar - Full Document

Mahabala vs Satyanarayana And Ors. on 18 July, 2003

12. In support of said pleading, there is evidence of RW-1 Prakash. It is stated by him that the respondent No. 1 had no driving licence and the R.T.O. Office informed that it has no record to show that any driving licence was issued to the first respondent and the first respondent also failed to produce driving licence before the Vehicle Inspector when the motor cycle was inspected by M.V.I after accident. However, except the said statement of RW-1 examined for respondent No. 3, there is no other evidence or record. So, the question is, whether this much evidence coupled with the pleading referred to above is sufficient to hold that the Insurance Company has discharged its burden cast on it since, admittedly, the burden to prove the same was on the Insurance Company, as held by this Court even before quarter century in the case of SANJIVA SHETTY v. ANANTHA AND ORS., 1976 ACJ 261 and reiterated recently also in the case of H.G. RAMACHANDRA RAO v. MASTER SRIKANTHA AND ORS., 1997 (3) KLJ 508 and even by the Supreme Court recently in the case of RUKMANI AND ORS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. AND ORS., .
Karnataka High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S B Majage - Full Document

Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors on 29 September, 1981

The provisions contained in section 95 (2) of the Act arose for consideration before a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab in Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Amrawati, (2) a Full Bench of the High Court of Madras in Jayalakshami & Ors. v. The Ruby General Insurance Company, Madras & anr., (3) the High Court of Karnataka in Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha & Ors., (4) and the High Court of Orissa in Sabita Pati & Ors. v. Rameshwar Singh and anr. (5) and M/s Construction India & Ors. v. Mahindra Pal Singh Ahluwalia & ors. (6) The Punjab case arose under section 95 (2) (b), while the other cases arose under section 95 (2)
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 203 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Padma Srinivasan vs Premier Insurance Co. Ltd on 16 February, 1982

We endorse the view taken by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Sanjiva Shetty S. v. Anantha.(1) The Full Bench overruled the judgment which is under appeal in the instant case and held that the material date for ascertaining the extent of liability of the insurer is the date of the accrual of the cause of action for a claim arising out of an accident, which in general would be the date of the accident and therefore, the insurer's liability arising out of an accident which happens after March 2, 1970, has to be 250 determined on the basis of the amended provisions of section 95 (2) (a) of the Act, even though the policy of insurance may have been issued prior to the date of the amendment, that is, prior to March 2, 1970.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 104 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 Next