Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 324 (2.24 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ã ... vs Mubasir Ahmed & Anr. Ã .Respondents on 1 February, 2007

United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shakura Ishaq Bhaya And Anr. on 11 July, 2007

11. This Court is of the view that as there is conflict between the views in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr. (supra) and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr. (supra) (which is two-Judge Bench judgment), this Court can prefer the view taken in the judgment in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) rather than the view taken in the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) in view of the aforesaid discussion.
Gujarat High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Limited vs Manphool Singh And Ors. on 17 December, 2007

The judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed (supra) was rendered by two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas the judgment in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (supra) was rendered by four Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme' Court. It is settled principle of law that under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court creates a binding precedent on all the courts in the country. However, in the event of conflict between two judgments on any question of law or interpretation of statute, it is the later view which needs to be followed, provided both the decisions are of the Bench of equal strength. In the event, the conflict is between a judgment of a Constitution Bench rendered earlier and a Hon'ble Division Bench delivered later in time, the Constitution Bench judgment is to be followed under the doctrine of stair decisis. Otherwise where the conflict is between a larger Bench judgment and a Bench of lesser strength, the opinion of the larger bench is to be followed, notwithstanding the fact that the decision of the larger bench is earlier in time.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 81 - P Kohli - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Pababhai Mayabhai Harijan And Ors. on 18 March, 2008

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Singh and National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Mubasir Ahmed reported pertains to accident occurred by use of a motor vehicle in respect of which the contract of insurance would be governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy under Motor Vehicles Act and the coverage of risk in such cases are altogether different from Workmen's Compensation Policy.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H B Antani - Full Document

Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Smt. Sanjida And Another on 2 December, 2009

While meeting the different view expressed in judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mubasir Ahmed's (supra) which was relied upon by the Apex Court in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi (Supra), learned Single Judge held that the decision rendered by the larger Bench will prevail upon the judgment rendered by the Bench of two Judges.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - K N Kaur - Full Document

The General Manager vs P.J.Saramma (Died) on 29 February, 2012

14. Then the next question is whether the Commissioner was M.F.A. (W.C. Act) No.186 of 2012 8 justified in awarding the interest from the date of accident. It is true that in the decisions reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Mubasir Ahmed (2007 (3) KLT 26 (SC)], the Supreme Court has held that since the legislature has not used expression from the date of accident, the date of payment will be from the date on which it falls due and unless there is adjudication, the question of falling the amount due does not arise and the liability to pay interest will start only from the date of adjudication of the claim by the authority.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P N Ravindran - Full Document

____________________________________________________________________ vs The Executive Engineer on 6 October, 2017

"12. The abovesaid decision does support the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that an industrial settlement would operate even by overriding a statutory provision to the contrary. However, suffice it to observe that the Constitution Bench decision in New Maneck Chowk Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. and also the decision of this Court in Hindustan Times Ltd. which is a four-Judge Bench decision, were not placed before the learned Judges deciding LIC of India case. A decision by the Constitution Bench and a decision by a Bench of more strength cannot be overlooked to treat a later decision by a Bench of lesser strength as of a binding authority; more so, when the attention of the Judges deciding the latter case was not invited to the earlier decisions available."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

National Insurance Com.Ltd. vs Ramesh Kumar Burman on 29 August, 2011

While in the three Judges Bench judgment of Maghar Singh (supra), Mohd. Nasir (supra), Mubasir Ahmed and another (supra), it is held that the scheme of the Act does not prohibit to grant of interest at reasonable rate from the date of filing of claim application till the realization. However, this Court is bound to follow the earlier judgment of four Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court. In the said case it is held that the employer is liable to pay compensation until the right to pay was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act because of the institution of civil suit. It has further been held that the employer became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury has caused to the workman in the accident took place during the course of employment. In the said context, the contention that interest shall fall due after adjudication under Section 19 of the Act by Commissioner has been repealed. The question of liability or the quantum of amount or duration, default of agreement, is required to be settled by the Commissioner, however, as and when the injury occurred the liability to pay compensation under Section 3 is not suspended in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. It has further been observed that it is the duty of employer to pay compensation after computing the amount under Section 4 to the extent of acceptance of liability. In default, interest and penalty may be directed from the date of accident.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next