Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.33 seconds)
Sunil Kumar vs Rinku Bhati on 15 November, 2025 cites

S.Iyyapan vs M/S United India Insurance Co.Ld.& Anr on 1 July, 2013

The learned Tribunal though observed that the proposition in S. Iyyapan case [S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62] applies in the factual matrix of the case, but no such order of pay and recovery was passed giving liberty to the insurance company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. I find substance in the submissions of Mr Paul, learned advocate for appellant Insurance Company relying on S. Iyyapan casethat liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle shall be given to the insurer in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 361 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Gohar Mohammad vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 15 December, 2022

5. 15.12.2022 was a watershed moment as far as recording of evidence is concerned, as on that date, judgment titled Gohar Mohammed v Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 381 was pronounced, which mandated inter alia that the Claims Tribunal was duty bound to record the evidence through a Local Commissioner. Ergo, vide order dated 13.02.2023, a Local Commissioner was appointed for recording of evidence, report whereof was submitted on 21.05.2024.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kamlesh & Ors. on 9 August, 2017

It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 76 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next