Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.67 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 17 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd vs Dyamavva & Ors on 5 February, 2013
Next ruling cited is In Oriental insurance Co. Ltd
Vs. Dyamavva and another reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1506
Hon'ble supreme Court held with reference to section 8 of the
Act thus :-
B.T. Shipping London Ltd. & Another vs Smt. Arati Narayanan & Others on 13 January, 2000
While interpreting the provisions of the Act, the court will
adopt that which is just, reasonable, rational and sensible,
rather than which is none of those things. The provisions of
the Act can not be construed in such manner so as to result in
undue and unjustified enrichment for the dependents of the
deceased employee at the cost of public money possessed by
corporate body. Under Section 2 (b), the compensation means
compensation as provided for by this Act, neither more nor
less. The propriety demanded that commissioner in the facts
and circumstances could not have without a valid reason
caused unjust increase to the legal liability of the employer to
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:21:36 :::
Tilak 28/36 FA-1122-13
pay amount of compensation provided under the Act, so as to
make it payable more than what is provided and payable
under the Act. This Court has held in the ruling of B.T
Shipping London Limited Vs. Arati Narayanan 2000 (2) Mah LJ
832= 2000(3) Bom.CR 381 His Lordship Justice Shri R.N.
Lodha (As his Lordship then was ) for Bombay High Court held
that Commissioner can not award compensation exceeding one
prescribed under the Act. In para 9 it is observed thus:-