Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Ravi Kumar Dhruv And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh 58 Mac/731/2011 ... on 16 January, 2018

Pareed Pillai vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 9 October, 2018

21. The question whether absence of valid Permit to a transport vehicle at the time of accident is a 'fundamental breach' or a 'technical breach' had come up for consideration again before the Apex Court recently in Amrit paul Singh and Another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and Others [2018 (3) KHC 197]. The factual MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and connected cases : 26 : matrix in the said case is that, the rider of the motor cycle was knocked down to death by the offending truck on 19.02.2013, which led to the claim petition preferred by the legal heirs. The claim was resisted by the insurer, mainly contending that there was violation of policy conditions in so far as the offending truck was not having a valid Permit and the driver was not having a valid driving licence.
Kerala High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kurru Sankar Rao vs The Union Of India on 9 November, 2020

In Ravi Sharma v. N.C.B.7 it was held that a bare reading of Section 37 makes it abundantly clear that it only relates to procedure and does not create any substantive offence. Law presumes that every accused shall be innocent unless to be guilty. Neither Act nor S.37 indicates any attempt to depart from the well recognized 5 . (2009) 2 SCC 624 6 . (2007) 1 SCC 355 7 . ILR (1991) 2 Del. 362 KL,J Crl.P. No.4199 of 2020 11 principles that an accused is presumed to be an innocent till held to be guilty. It was, observed in the statements and reasons for amendment of the Act that it provided deterrent punishment for drug trafficking offences and that even though the major offences were non-bailable by virtue of the level of punishment, on technical grounds drug offenders were released on bail. It was with a view to check the release of the offenders easily and to provide for certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Act, the need to amend the law including S.37 was felt. There can possibly be no dispute that it is only a procedure which has been provided governing the grant of bail. It is not a substantive right nor bail is refused by way of punishment. Time and again, the Apex Court has emphasized need for speedy trial, particularly when release of under trial on bail is restricted under provisions of Statute, like Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Pareed Pillai vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 9 October, 2018

21. The question whether absence of valid Permit to a transport vehicle at the time of accident is a 'fundamental breach' or a 'technical breach' had come up for consideration again before the Apex Court MACA No. 2030 of 2015 and connected cases : 26 : recently in Amrit paul Singh and Another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and Others [2018 (3) KHC 197]. The factual matrix in the said case is that, the rider of the motor cycle was knocked down to death by the offending truck on 19.02.2013, which led to the claim petition preferred by the legal heirs. The claim was resisted by the insurer, mainly contending that there was violation of policy conditions in so far as the offending truck was not having a valid Permit and the driver was not having a valid driving licence.
Kerala High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Salik Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 February, 2024

14. Negligent is not defined specifically in the Indian Penal Code. It has to be examined in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. It has to be examined in attending circumstances. It may not be always determined with the speed of vehicle, if a person is driving recklessly would amount to rash and negligent driving. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284 has observed in para 13 and 14 as under :-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P P Sahu - Full Document

Suraj Prasad Tigga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 March, 2024

15. Negligence is not defined specifically in the Indian Penal Code. It has to be examined in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. It has to be examined in attending circumstances. It may not be always determined with the speed of vehicle, if a person is driving recklessly would amount to rash and negligent driving. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284 has observed in para 13 and 14 as under :-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P P Sahu - Full Document

Cholamandalam Ms Gen.Insurance Co. vs Shish Ram And Another on 21 August, 2023

Report of investigator in our view has no evidentiary value. Appointment of investigator is for self-service purpose of Page 4 of 6 APPEAL NO.1264 OF 2018 21.08.2023 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INS. COMP. LTD. & ANR. VS. SHISH RAM & ANR. the Insurance Company. Therefore, the said report is not to be relied on. In our view there is no need to give go by to the report of surveyor. Surveyor himself explained queries made by insurance authorities. Even then Insurance Company repudiated the claim on flimsy ground. In the absence of any evidence to prove alleged misrepresentation of facts by the complainant, the State Commission is of the view that the insurance company committed deficiency in service by repudiating claim of complainant without any proper reason.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Jatav vs Border Security Force on 7 January, 2025

8. The learned Single Judge, after considering the various judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. 5/5 Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469, State of UP and others v. Ashok Kumar Singh and another, (1996) 1 SCC 302 and the judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Dhruv Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, decided on 06.07.2017, in WP No. 1169 of 2010 (S) came into conclusion that the action of the respondents are justified and there is no ground to interfere with the order of retirement of the petitioner.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next