Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Bhupathi Sujatha And 5 Others on 16 June, 2022 cites

Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India ... on 16 January, 2014

455. Furthermore, contributory negligence has to be proved, or, to say so, at the very least, shown by adducing evidence, and in the absence thereof, contributory negligence and liability flowing therefrom cannot be fastened onto a party [See Syed Sadiq v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735]. The Court 12 called upon learned counsel for the appellant as to whether there was any contest on the quantum awarded by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1338 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nirmala on 23 November, 2006

14. Moreover, learned counsel sought to place reliance on National Insurance Company Limited v Sureshbhai @ Sureshchandra Maganbhai Parmar, 2006 LawSuit (Guj) 911, rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nirmala, AIR 2007 Ker 103 delivered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, and; Bhaskar Alias Bhaskar Devaram Bangad v R. K. Srinivasan, 2000 LawSuit (Kar) 199, by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 5 - M N Krishnan - Full Document

Benson George vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 25 February, 2022

15. Learned counsel for the appellant, opposing the cross- objection, submitted that as per Section 171 of the Act, simple interest is to be awarded in addition to the compensation amount, which ought to have been 5% or 6% per annum, but in the present case, the interest awarded is 7.5% per annum, which itself is high. He placed reliance on the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in Benson George v Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LawSuit (SC) 230, where the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, being 9% per annum from the 15 date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization was reduced to 6% per annum. It was further contended that the cross-objectors are not entitled to claim interest under the head 'future prospects' as it is probable income to be received in future.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next