Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Section 2 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Montford Borthers Of St.Gabriel & Anr vs United India Insurance & Ors on 28 January, 2014
6. His submission is that if the definition under
subsection (11) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, is applied, any person who in law
represents the estate of the deceased person would
be a legal representative and include any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and
where a party sues or is sued in a different
character, the person on whom the estate devolves
on the death of the party so suing or sued. On that
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024
HC-KAR
basis, he submits that in terms of the decision in the
case of Montford Brothers (supra) the Mutt of
which the deceased was the Swamiji, the services of
the Swamiji having been denied on account of his
death, the Mutt was entitled to compensation on
account of loss dependency and the said Tribunal
could not have denied the same.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mother Superior, S.H. Convent And Ors. on 7 April, 1994
7. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company supports the order
passed by the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal
by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala
High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance
Company Limited vs. Mother Superior and
others reported in 1994 ACJ 673 held that the
successor of a Mutt is not a dependent upon the
deceased Swamiji because the Swamiji's life was
independent and as such, the Tribunal has rightly
rejected the compensation on account of loss of
dependency.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
32. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, an
amount of Rs.15,000/- each is ordinarily awardable
towards loss of estate. However, in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi's case (supra), the amounts under these
heads are required to be enhanced by 10% once in
1