Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.11 seconds)
Smt. Seema Devi And Others vs Haribansh And Others on 21 April, 2022 cites

Smt. Meena Pawaiya vs Ashraf Ali on 5 September, 2017

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in view of the three latest decision of the Apex Court mentioned herein above namely, Smt. Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694, Basanti Devi and Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (Supreme Court) case wherein the Apex Court has considered the notional income of a minor of seven years in the year 2004 to be Rs.25,000/- per annum. We consider the income of Rs.36,000/- per annum plus 40%.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali vs Shyam Kishore Murmu on 16 November, 2021

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in view of the three latest decision of the Apex Court mentioned herein above namely, Smt. Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694, Basanti Devi and Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2021 (4) TAC 673 (Supreme Court) case wherein the Apex Court has considered the notional income of a minor of seven years in the year 2004 to be Rs.25,000/- per annum. We consider the income of Rs.36,000/- per annum plus 40%.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 245 - R S Reddy - Full Document

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

8. As against this, learned counsel Shri Ankur Mehrotra, appearing for insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal in the year 2005 has rightly considered the annual income to Rs.15,000/- per annum as there is no documentary evidence was produced. The evidence of PWs-1 & 2 also did not lay down any foundation that income was more than Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is further submitted that in the year of accident the prospective income were not to be considered as Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle rules, 1998 was silent and amended them in the year 2011. They cannot be retrospectively made effective and as far as multiplier is concerned, the learned counsel states that as per the judgement in Sarla Verma (supra). As far as rate of interest is concerned, learned counsel states that the matter is remain pending before this Court may consider grant of interest as per the repo rates.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Smt. Tej Kumari Sharma And 4 Others vs Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance ... on 19 March, 2021

The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing the amount.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 59 - A Singh - Full Document

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2021

13. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Privae Ltd. vs. Union of India and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as the purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. Since long time has elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Bank Account of claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 320 - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011

We grant lump-sum Rs.70,000/- as per Pranay Sethi (supra) judgement plus as five years have elapsed the income 10% for every three year. Hence, we round up Rs.30,000/-. As it has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company that they have conciliated therefore, rate of interest is not enhanced, should be also 6%. rate of interest.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10133 - K Kannan - Full Document

Smt. Hansaguri Prafulchandra Ladhani ... vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And ... on 4 October, 2006

In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [2007(2) GLH 291] and this High Court if total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to any claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimants to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income- Tax Authority.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 288 - M S Shah - Full Document

Smt. Seema Devi And Others vs Haribansh And Others on 30 March, 2022

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgement and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.5 Gorakhpur dated 15.09.2007 in MACP No.729 of 2016 (Smt. Seema and others Vs. Haribansh and others), by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.1,89,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - A Tyagi - Full Document
1