Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

20. We are constrained to hold that after the decisions on Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra), the learned Tribunal was under an obligation to follow the said dicta and not the IInd Schedule of the Act, 1988 if the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. Hence, we are hasten to hold that multiplier of 18 would be just multiplier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Asha Dhamecha 9 Mac/1038/2014 Biresh ... on 4 December, 2019

5. The owner and the Insurance Company have accepted the findings as far as their liability is concerned. The Tribunal even held that strict trappings of criminal and civil proceedings could not be made applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relied on the decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. U.C. Thakur and others, 2006 ACJ 2759 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahfuja Begum and others, 2002 ACJ 214. There is no dispute as far as the said issue is concerned.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mannat Johal on 23 April, 2019

27. This takes us to the vexed question of grant of interest. The repo rate is declining day in day out. The Rule 220 (6) of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules (11th Amendment), 2011 prescribes 7% rate of interest. We cannot grant interest less than 7% and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.), we consider it just and proper to award 7.5% rate of interest. The interest has to be from the date of filing of the claim petition and we confirm the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 278 - D Maheshwari - Full Document
1   2 Next