Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.42 seconds)
Smt. Nuraisha Khatoon vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 22 November, 2024 cites

Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003

18. Therefore, in this context, the actions of Respondent No. 1 are 11 (2005) 6 SCC 657 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 7516/2022 & connected matters Page 16 of 26 By:DEEPANSHI NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2024 19:24:04 amenable to scrutiny under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors.,12 relied upon by Respondent No. 1 is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the Supreme Court dealt with internal employment matters of a private bank, where no public function was involved. In contrast, the present case involves the implementation of a government welfare scheme, wherein Respondent No. 1 performs a public duty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 487 - B Kumar - Full Document

Banchhanidhi Rath vs The State Of Orissa And Ors. on 9 December, 1971

In support of this proposition, they rely on precedents of the Supreme Court in Lakhiraj v. Dy Custodian, AIR 1966 SC 334; DFO v. Biswanath Tea Co Ltd., AIR 1981 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 7516/2022 & connected matters Page 9 of 26 By:DEEPANSHI NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2024 19:24:04 SC 1368; Banchhanidhi Rath v. The State of Orissa, (1972) 4 SCC 781.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 338 - A N Ray - Full Document

Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 1 April, 2009

Additionally, they submit that the present case arises from an insurance contract, which is purely a commercial transaction as held in Vikram Greentech India Limited v. New India Assurance Company Limited4. Therefore, it constitutes a purely commercial relationship between two private entities. Consequently, they argue that the dispute is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 138 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Smt.Asha Goel & Anr on 13 December, 2000

In this regard, it is noted that in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. v. Asha Goel (Smt) and Anr., 7 the Supreme Court has delved into this question and has emphasised that when an insurer has repudiated the claim, the High Court must consider the facts and circumstances, the nature of dispute raised, the nature of inquiry necessary to be made for determination of the questions raised as well as other relevant factors before taking a decision on whether the Court should entertain the writ petition or reject it as being non-maintainable. The Apex Court laid emphasis on the necessity for the writ court to carefully weigh the pros and cons of the matter within the specific context of the case. If the repudiation of the claim raises serious disputes of fact, and the Court finds such disputes to be bona fide, requiring oral and documentary evidence for their resolution, then, ordinarily the writ court should refrain from exercising its Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 7516/2022 & connected matters Page 12 of 26 By:DEEPANSHI NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2024 19:24:04 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 333 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005

Thus, by providing insurance policies under this government-mandated scheme, Respondent No. 1 is effectively participating in the implementation of a public welfare program. The role of Respondent No. 1 thus is not that of a conventional private insurer; it becomes an instrumentality facilitating the State's objective of protecting its citizens working overseas. In this capacity, Respondent No. 1 performs functions that are imbued with public interest. The Supreme Court, in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India,10 elucidated that even if an entity is not 'State' under Article 12, it can still be subject to writ jurisdiction if it performs public duties or functions of a public nature. In the present case, the Petitioners' grievance pertains to the alleged arbitrary and unjust 9 (2003) 10 SCC 733 10 (2005) 4 SCC 649 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 7516/2022 & connected matters Page 15 of 26 By:DEEPANSHI NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2024 19:24:04 repudiation of an insurance claim under a statutory scheme intended for the welfare of Indian emigrant workers. The denial of such a claim impacts the Petitioners' legal rights and undermines the purpose of the government scheme. Therefore, since the insurance company has issued the subject insurance policies under the specific scheme of the Government of India, the policies attain a character of discharging public function.
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 404 - Full Document
1   2 Next