Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.69 seconds)
Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998 cites

Jaikumar Chhaganlal Patni And Ors. vs Mary Jerome D'Souza And Ors. on 21 September, 1977

Many invest through this policy for variety of reasons, maybe, to secure the sum for himself as forced saving, maybe, as in India, for deduction towards his income-tax liability, to secure loan by himself in case needed on a meagre interest for building his residence or to secure sum in case of happening of the said contingencies etc.. He enters into this contract with an open eye, as an act of wisdom, of course, not towards the gain to the tortfeasor. The English Court expressing concern on this aspect in the aforesaid decision recorded; "why should the plaintiff be left worse off than if he had never insured". Thus, the interpretation of deduction of life insurance would result" into the gain to the wrong doer in proportion to the higher scale of premium paid by the insured for no contribution of bus and loss to the claimant in proportion to the higher scale of premium paid, as he would have received the compensation amount without payment of any premium. Before we proceed to decide the question raised, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Gobald Motor case (supra) which is the foundation of the decision in Jaikumar (supra). The passage relied upon is quoted hereunder:-
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

N. Sivammal And Ors. vs Managing Director, Pandian Roadways ... on 24 September, 1984

In N.Sivammal & Ors. Vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation & Anr., 1985 (1) SCC 18, this Court held that Rs. .10,000/receivable as monetary benefit to the widow of the pension amount, the deduction of which is not qualified. So, though deduction of widow's pension was not accepted but for this, no principle was discussed therein. However, having given our full consideration, we find there is deliberate change in the language in the later Act, revealing the intent of the legislature, viz., to confer wider discretion to the Tribunal which is not to be found in the earlier Act. Thus, any decision based on the principle applicable to the earlier Act, would not be applicable while adjudicating the compensation payable to the claimant in the later Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 139 - D A Desai - Full Document

Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd vs Northern India Transport Insurance Co on 16 March, 1971

In M/s Sheikhupura Transport Company Ltd. Vs. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1971 SC 1624) this Court did consider the case of compensation under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and did refer to the decision in Gobald Motor Service (supra), in case the compensation is to be computed under 1855 Act. This inference was drawn by assuming if 1855 Act is applicable, however, it further holds that language used in the 1939 Act, is wider. This apart, again in this case neither any question was raised for fact were pleaded and adjudicated regarding the deduction of life insurance, gratuity, pension etc.. The relevant portion is quoted herein-under.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 175 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next