Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hetalbhai C. Bagadia And Ors. on 4 March, 1999

United vs Memon on 15 June, 2010

Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Company Limited (supra) as well as decision of this Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Hetalbhai C. Bagadia & Ors. (supra) to the facts of the instant case, there is no written permission obtained by the Insurance Company to contest the claim case under Section 170 of the Act. Therefore, merely, just because the Advocate of the Insurance Company has cross-examined the claimants' witnesses on merits, it cannot be inferred that the Tribunal has passed reasons permitting the Insurance Company to avail of a larger defence on merits under the statutory provisions of Section 170 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

United vs Jarinaben on 16 June, 2010

Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Company Limited (supra) as well as decision of this Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Hetalbhai C. Bagadia & Ors. (supra) to the facts of the instant case, there is no written permission obtained by the Insurance Company to contest the claim case under Section 170 of the Act. Therefore, merely, just because the Advocate of the Insurance Company has cross-examined the claimants' witnesses on merits, it cannot be inferred that the Tribunal has passed reasoned order permitting the Insurance Company to avail of a larger defence on merits under the statutory provisions of Section 170 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

United vs Ismailbhai on 18 June, 2010

Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Company Limited (supra) as well as decision of this Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Hetalbhai C. Bagadia & Ors. (supra) to the facts of the instant case, there is no written permission obtained by the Insurance Company to contest the claim case under Section 170 of the Act. Therefore, merely, just because the Advocate of the Insurance Company has cross-examined the claimant's witnesses on merits, it cannot be inferred that the Tribunal has passed reasoned order permitting the Insurance Company to avail of a larger defence on merits under the statutory provisions of Section 170 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

United vs Arunaben on 18 June, 2010

Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Company Limited (supra) as well as decision of this Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Hetalbhai C. Bagadia & Ors. (supra) to the facts of the instant case, there is no written permission obtained by the Insurance Company to contest the claim case under Section 170 of the Act. Therefore, merely, just because the Advocate of the Insurance Company has cross-examined the claimants' witnesses on merits, it cannot be inferred that the Tribunal has passed reasoned order permitting the Insurance Company to avail of a larger defence on merits under the statutory provisions of Section 170 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

United vs Savitaben on 18 June, 2010

Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Company Limited (supra) as well as decision of this Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Hetalbhai C. Bagadia & Ors. (supra) to the facts of the instant case, there is no written permission obtained by the Insurance Company to contest the claim case under Section 170 of the Act. Therefore, merely, just because the Advocate of the Insurance Company has cross-examined the claimants' witnesses on merits, it cannot be inferred that the Tribunal has passed reasoned order permitting the Insurance Company to avail of a larger defence on merits under the statutory provisions of Section 170 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

Dividional Manager, United Ind vs Most.Pratibha Verma & Ors on 22 July, 2010

A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the claimants-respondents herein as regarding the maintainability of the appeal in the light of the judicial pronouncement(s) reported in 2001(1) P.L.J.R. 30 (SC) (Rita Devi (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr), 2003 (3) P.L.J.R. 599 (Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Vs. Raj Banshi Ram & Ors), 2005(2) P.L.J.R. 43 (SC) (Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Anr) and A.I.R. 1999 Gujarat 213 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Hetalbhai C. Bagadia & Ors.). It was contended that in absence of prior permission from the Tribunal on the question of quantum, the appellant insurance company was estopped from raising any issue on the quantum of the compensation. It was submitted that all the grounds raised in the appeal centered around the quantum and thus in the light of the judicial pronouncement of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the appellant insurance company was not entitled to raise any question on quantum of compensation.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Yogeshbhai Ramanbhai Shah And Ors. on 18 June, 2007

7.1. Mr. Dave submitted that a contention has been raised on behalf of appellant that the Tribunal has permitted the advocate of the insurer to cross-examine the witnesses of the claimant and permitted to argue the case on merits and, therefore, the insurer be permitted to prefer an appeal on merits. However, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hetalbhai C. Bagadia , this contention cannot be accepted. He further submitted that there was no collusion between the owner and the claimant and even if it is held that there was collusion, then also the insurer can contest the claim only upon getting an order from the Tribunal in an application under Section 170 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document
1   2 Next