Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Rajkumar Agarwal vs Vehicle Tata Venture No. Up 70 Bm ... on 19 January, 2023

Smt. Salama Khatoon Washi Ahemad Khan ... vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 20 February, 2024

This judgment is dated 13 December 2017. But, the Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar Agrawal's case (supra) is dated 19 January 2023. Therefore in view of the fact that this aspect of bar u/s 53 of the ESI Act to proceedings under MV Act is referred by Sneha Chavan page 6 /8 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 01:51:07 ::: IA 14275-23.doc Hon'ble Supreme Court to a Bench of appropriate strength for authoritative pronouncement, I find it appropriate to refrain from passing an order on application by Applicant Nos.1 to 4, for the time being and it is left open to be decided by this Court at appropriate time. I say so because even partial withdrawal of amount has a hurdle of bar u/s. 53 of ESI Act as it goes to the maintainability of the claim itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M M Sathaye - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Kamalesh on 28 April, 2025

8. Rajkumar Agrawal (supra) referred the question as to whether a motor accident claim would lie with respect to an injured employee, in view of the bar contemplated under Section 53 of the ESI Act; not very relevant in the instant case. Western India Plywood Ltd. 9 held that the bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act acted against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law and is equally applicable to relief under another statute and to a claim in torts. A suit for damages on account of an employment injury was held barred. In Hamida Khatoon10, the applicability of the bar under Section 53 was held to apply even against receiving the compensation under the M.V. Act. In the two Judge Bench decision of Francis De Costa11, the two Judges differed on the question whether the accident suffered by an employee on the public road, while he was on his way to join duty, is one arising out of and in the course of employment. The observation made in so far as a remedy under the M.V. Act is inconsequential, in so far as the issue itself was referred to a three Judge Bench. The larger Bench answered the reference in (1996) 6 SCC 1, against the employee, holding that the injury caused to an employee in an accident while he was travelling to his place of employment would not be covered, unless the accident had at Page 5 of 19 CA @SLP (C) No. 12235-12236 of 2019 etc. least a causal connection with the work he was doing at the factory. The reference of the specific question need not detain us in the present case where there is an authoritative finding by a three Judge Bench with regard to the Rules of 2006 as is seen from Shashi Sharma4.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Dhulia - Full Document

Shri K Santhosh Kumar vs Smt C Ambika on 15 July, 2025

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the bar contained under Section 53 is only in respect of the compensation which he has already received and to claim compensation which is not granted, the bar does not operate. He would also refer to Section 61 of Act of 1948 to contend that the bar is only in respect of compensation in the event the petitioner had received any benefit under the Act, 1948. He would submit that the petitioner has not received any benefit under the Act, 1948. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision in RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL supra.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The D.M. (T.P. Cell) New India vs Nirash Hembram & Others on 14 November, 2024

2. Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mahali, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer by placing the decision in Rajkumar Agrawal vs. Vehicle Tata Venture & Others in Civil Appeal No.4941 of 2022 decided on 19.01.2023 submits that similar matter has been referred to the larger Bench by the Apex Court and therefore, the present matter may kindly be heard after decision in the aforesaid case.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - G Satapathy - Full Document

Silpi Samantaray And vs Suresh Ku. Upadhyaya on 22 October, 2025

22. 1. During the course of hearing, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) submits that the point for consideration in the case at hand that is whether in the face of coverage under the ESI Act claim is maintainable under the Motor Vehicle Act, has been referred to a Larger Bench by order dated 19.01.2023 in the case of Rajkumar Agarwal vs. Vehicle Tata Venture, Commercial Auto Sales Private Ltd., thru. its Director and others, 2023 (2) T.A.C. 28 (S.C.).
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Narasingh - Full Document

M/S Akash Enterprises vs Anil Kumar & Anr on 10 March, 2026

1. While learned counsel for the appellant refers to Section 53 of ESIC Act and relies on the decision in Dhropadabai & Ors. v. Technocraft Toolings in Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2014, learned counsel for the respondents contends otherwise and submits that the issue has now been referred to the larger Bench in Rajkumar Agrawal v. Vehicle Tata Venture No. UP 70 BM-1600 Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited Thr. Its Director Sanskar Gupta & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4941/2022.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document
1