Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 434 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Economic Transport Organisation Delhi vs M/S Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.& Anr on 17 February, 2010
In any event,
even assuming that there was a subrogation applying the principles of
law as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Economic Transport
Organization, Delhi Vs. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
(supra), it needs to be held that the company petitions at the behest of
the respondent were nevertheless maintainable.
Union Of India vs Sri Sarada Mills Ltd on 28 September, 1972
14. The reliance of the Company, on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Sri Sarada Mills Ltd. (supra) is
not well founded. The dispute in the said case arose from a suit
instituted by the plaintiff - Sri Sarada Mills Ltd., against the Union of
India/Railways for damages to 100 bales of F. P. cotton consigned
through their agents from Nagpur to Podhanur under a railway receipt
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:12:59 :::
pvr 17/20 appl134-18grp.doc
issued by the Central Railway. When the goods had arrived at
Podhanur, it was found that 87 bales out of the 100 were burnt and
charred and 13 bales were loose and short in weight. When the
plaintiff applied for open delivery, the railway authorities at Podhanur
got the damage surveyed, and issued a certificate of damage and
shortage. The plaintiff claimed damages. The railways however denied
the claim as the cause of the fire was stated to be unknown and thus
no negligence or misconduct could be claimed against the railways.
The plaintiff had accordingly instituted a suit for damages. It is in the
said suit the defendants-railways contended that the plaintiff was not
entitled to institute the suit as it had insured the goods with the Indian
Globe Insurance Co. and had received the total loss from the said
Company, and therefore, the railways was not liable for damages. In
the majority judgment, the Court refused to accept the said contention
and made the following observation:-
Section 439 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Pvd Plast Mould Industries Ltd. vs Ing Bhf Bank Aktiengesellschaft on 17 June, 2005
In light of the judgments referred to above, the submission
of the Company In light of the judgments referred to
above, the submission of the Company that, in view of the
5 2008(144) Company Cases 484 Gujarat
6 Company Petition no.294 of 2014, order dt.22.12.2014
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:12:59 :::
pvr 16/20 appl134-18grp.doc
phraseology of the payment receipt-cum-subrogation letter
which includes the words "assign" and "transfer", only the
insurer can initiate and maintain any action against the
Company cannot be accepted. The Petitioner is indeed
entitled to file the above Company Petition against the
Company and the Petition as filed is maintainable in law.
The only obligation that falls upon the Petitioner is in
respect of receipt of sums from the Respondent which may
be in excess of the Petitioner's claim, to which extent the
insurance company would be entitled to seek recovery of
such sums from the Petitioner. This, however, would be the
subject matter of separate proceedings between the
insurance company and Petitioner and does not merit any
further consideration at the stage of admission of this
present Company Petition.
Oberai Forwarding Agency vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 1 February, 2000
In Economic Transport Organization, Delhi Vs. Charan
Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.(supra) as relied on behalf of the
appellant, the issue which fell for consideration of the Constitution
Bench was on a reference as made by a three Judges' Bench on the
issue that the decision of the Supreme Court in Oberai Forwarding
Agency V. New India Assurance Co.Ltd7 whether required
reconsideration. The question which fell for consideration of the
Supreme Court in the said decision are paraphrased in paragraph 11 of
the decision which pertained to the issue of a letter of subrogation
executed by an assured in favour of the insurer. One of the questions
namely question (b) was where the insurer pays the amount of loss to
the assured, whether the insurer as subrogee, can lodge a complaint
under the Act, either in the name of the assured, or in the joint names
of the insurer and the assured as co-complainants?. In answering the
said issue, the Court laid down the principles of subrogation in
7 (2000)2 SCC 407
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 02:12:59 :::
pvr 19/20 appl134-18grp.doc
paragraph 35 of the decision and answered the questions so framed in
paragraph 51 of the decision. It was held that if there is subrogation
in favour of the insurer, the insurer as subrogee can file a complaint
under the Consumer Protection Act either in the name of the assured
as his attorney-holder or in the joint names of the assured and the
insurer, for recovery of the amount due from the service provider. It
was held that the insurer cannot in its own name maintain a complaint
before a Consumer Forum under the Act, even if its right is traced to
the terms of a letter of subrogation-cum-assignment executed by the
assured. The observations of the Court in paragraph 51 needs to be
noted which read thus:-
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
1