Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.20 seconds)
1. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... vs 1. Mohit Verma on 27 March, 2014 cites

M/S.Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P)Ltd vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 8 October, 2010

25.   The Counsel for the appellants, also placed reliance on M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2011 CTJ 11 SC (CP), to contend that the parties being bound by the terms and conditions of the Policy, could not turn round, and say that, on account of violation thereof, the repudiation of claim was illegal. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy are in the shape of a contract, between the insured and the insurer. The parties are, no doubt, bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. However, the question arises, as to whether, the insurer was able to prove violation of the terms and conditions or not. Had the insurer proved the violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, certainly, repudiation of the claim could be held to be legal and valid. In the instant case, it has been held above, that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, on the part of the insured, as it was not proved by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, that the complainant was under the influence of liquor, at the time, the accident took place. Positive evidence of the Medical Officer/Doctor, who examined the complainant, immediately, after the accident took place, in the Hospital aforesaid, was to the effect that the complainant was not under the influence of liquor, though, he had consumed alcohol. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellants, from M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd.`s case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 272 - D K Jain - Full Document

Smt. Tara Wanti vs State Of Haryana Through The Collector, ... on 5 July, 1994

13.   The question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 111 days, as per the applicants/appellants (as per the office report 117 days), in filing the appeal, under Section 15 of the Act. It was held in  Smt.Tara Wanti Vs State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab & Haryana 32, a case decided by a Full Bench of the  Punjab and  Haryana High Court,  that sufficient cause, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, must be a cause, which is beyond the control of the party, invoking the aid of the Section, and the test to be applied, would be to see, as to whether, it was a bona-fide cause, in as much as, nothing could be considered to be bonafide, which is not done, with due care and attention. In   New Bank of India Vs. M/s Marvels (India): 93 (2001) DLT 558, Delhi High Court,  it was held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 182 - R P Sethi - Full Document
1   2 Next