Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 543 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Nicolletta Rohtagi And Ors on 17 September, 2002

National Insurance Co. vs Mohd. Sultan Asim And Anr. on 25 August, 2004

In the instant case itself, theoretically speaking, the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nicolletta Rahtagi (supra) overruling the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhushan Sachdeva (supra) can be reversed by a larger Bench in future. If it happens, the Insurance Company Would be rushing to this Court for another review of the judgment.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - R C Gandhi - Full Document

Smt Najmun Bai vs Sanjay Dewangan on 5 February, 2008

10). Now reverting to the present case, permission under Section 170 of the Act was not granted to the appellant - Insurance Company. As such quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, cannot be challenged by the appellant - Insurance Company in this appeal in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others (Supra).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R Gupta - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Manjulaben Jayantibhai Patel And Ors. on 20 June, 2003

In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co, Ltd., 1998 (3) SCC 140, which came to be approved by the Larger Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), only the Insurance Company had filed the written statement contesting the claim petition on merits and also indicating its desire to avail of the permission under Section 170 of the Act without expressly praying for it through an application. The Apex Court considered an identical contention regarding implied permission under Section 170, which came to be rejected in the following terms :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - M S Shah - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri K C Subramanyam S/O Lt Chakrapathi on 12 July, 2012

The Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., CHANDIGARH Vs. NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI AND OTHERS reported in 2002 (7) SCC 456, at para-14 has categorically held that Sub-Section (7) of Section 149 of 1988 Act clearly indicates that in what manner Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 has to be interpreted. Sub-Section (7) of Section 149 provides that no insurer to whom the notice referred to in Sub-Section (2) or Sub-Section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any judgment or award as is referred to in Sub- Section (1) or any such judgment as is referred to in Sub- Section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in Sub-Section (2) or (4) correspondingly of the reciprocating country, as the case may be. The expression 'manner' employed in Sub-Section (7) of Section 149 is very relevant, which means the insurer can avoid his liability only on the grounds that has been provided for in Sub-Section (2) of Section 149. It therefore shows that the insurer can avoid its liability only on the statutory defences expressly provided in Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the 1988 Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ojili Gopal Reddy And Ors. on 26 April, 2005

In that view of the matter, as much as it is not disputed that the appellant-insurer has not obtained any such permission, in view of the judgment cited National Insurance Company Ltd, Chandigrah v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. (supra), it cannot contest the findings of the Tribunal either on account of negligence or with regard to quantum of compensation. Therefore, I need not discuss the evidence on record to consider the appeals, which are filed only questioning the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - R S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next