Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.09 seconds)
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004 cites

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 17 August, 2001

We find ourselves unable, furthermore, to countenance the contention of the respondents that the words "any person" as used in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, would be rendered otiose by an interpretation that removed gratuitous passengers from the ambit of the same. It was observed by this Court in the case concerning New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani (supra) that the true purport of the words "any person" is to be found in the liability of the insurer for third party risk, which was sought to be provided for by the enactment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 935 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Devireddy Konda Reddy & ... on 24 January, 2003

It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents, the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, that the decision in Asha Rani case (supra) and Konda Reddy case (supra) were delivered with respect to the position prevailing prior to the amendment of Section 147 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. As such, the effect of the legislative amendment was not in question in the above cases, and therefore, the law laid down by these decisions would not be considered as binding law in view of coming into force of the said amendment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 174 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Smt. Parayankandiyal ... vs K. Devi & Ors on 26 April, 1996

Heydon's Rule has been applied by this Court in a large number of cases in order to suppress the mischief which was intended to be remedied as against the literal rule which could have otherwise covered the field. [See for example, Smt. PEK Kalliani Amma and Others vs. K. Devi and Others, [AIR 1996 SC 1963; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1955 SC 661; and Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 1990 SC 781].
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 68 - K Singh - Full Document

The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954

Heydon's Rule has been applied by this Court in a large number of cases in order to suppress the mischief which was intended to be remedied as against the literal rule which could have otherwise covered the field. [See for example, Smt. PEK Kalliani Amma and Others vs. K. Devi and Others, [AIR 1996 SC 1963; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1955 SC 661; and Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 1990 SC 781].
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document

Goodyear India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Anr. Etc. Etc on 19 October, 1989

Heydon's Rule has been applied by this Court in a large number of cases in order to suppress the mischief which was intended to be remedied as against the literal rule which could have otherwise covered the field. [See for example, Smt. PEK Kalliani Amma and Others vs. K. Devi and Others, [AIR 1996 SC 1963; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1955 SC 661; and Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 1990 SC 781].
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 361 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1