Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)Section 31 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Section 96 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 22 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Govind Singh And Ors. vs A.S. Kailasam And Anr. on 1 August, 1974
30. Besides, the Division Bench decision of this court in Vimal Rai's cases [1974] 44 Comp Case 316, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Precto Pipe v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1984] ACJ 218 and Labh Singh v. Sunehri Devi [1988] ACJ 170; [1989] 65 Comp 273 (P&H); the Calcutta High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Labanya Ray [1985] ACJ 720; the Orissa High Court in South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purna Chandra Misra, , the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Shantilal Mohanlal v. Aher Bawanji Maldev ; the Madras High Court in Govind Singh v. A. S. Kailasam [1975] ACJ 215; the Mysore High Court in B. P. Venkatappa Setty v. B. N. Lakshmisah [1973] ACJ 306; the Bombay High Court in Smt. Gulab Bai Damodar Tapse v. Peter K. Sunder [1975] ACJ 100 and the Rajasthan High Court in Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewalal, , had taken the same view.
B.P. Venkatappa Setty vs B.N. Lakshmiah And Anr. on 5 February, 1973
30. Besides, the Division Bench decision of this court in Vimal Rai's cases [1974] 44 Comp Case 316, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Precto Pipe v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1984] ACJ 218 and Labh Singh v. Sunehri Devi [1988] ACJ 170; [1989] 65 Comp 273 (P&H); the Calcutta High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Labanya Ray [1985] ACJ 720; the Orissa High Court in South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purna Chandra Misra, , the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Shantilal Mohanlal v. Aher Bawanji Maldev ; the Madras High Court in Govind Singh v. A. S. Kailasam [1975] ACJ 215; the Mysore High Court in B. P. Venkatappa Setty v. B. N. Lakshmisah [1973] ACJ 306; the Bombay High Court in Smt. Gulab Bai Damodar Tapse v. Peter K. Sunder [1975] ACJ 100 and the Rajasthan High Court in Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewalal, , had taken the same view.
Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) ... vs Dewalal And Ors. on 29 November, 1976
30. Besides, the Division Bench decision of this court in Vimal Rai's cases [1974] 44 Comp Case 316, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Precto Pipe v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1984] ACJ 218 and Labh Singh v. Sunehri Devi [1988] ACJ 170; [1989] 65 Comp 273 (P&H); the Calcutta High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Labanya Ray [1985] ACJ 720; the Orissa High Court in South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purna Chandra Misra, , the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Shantilal Mohanlal v. Aher Bawanji Maldev ; the Madras High Court in Govind Singh v. A. S. Kailasam [1975] ACJ 215; the Mysore High Court in B. P. Venkatappa Setty v. B. N. Lakshmisah [1973] ACJ 306; the Bombay High Court in Smt. Gulab Bai Damodar Tapse v. Peter K. Sunder [1975] ACJ 100 and the Rajasthan High Court in Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewalal, , had taken the same view.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Avinash on 20 August, 1987
The Rajasthan High Court also took a contrary view in Santosh Rani v. Sheela Rani [1988] ACJ 299 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Avinash [1988] ACJ 322; [1989] 65 Comp0 Case 404 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sama v. Yusu [1988] ACJ 139 also took a contrary view. For the reasons recorded above and in view of the decisions of the majority of the High Courts, with respect, we are unable to accept the view taken in these decisions of the majority of the High Courts, with respect, we are unable to accept the view of the decisions of the majority of the High Courts, with respect, we are unable to accept the view taken in these decisions.
British India General Insurance Co., ... vs Captain Itbar Singh And Others on 11 May, 1959
In British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Caplain Itbar Singh [1959] 29 Comp Case (Ins) 60; , it was held that sub-section (2) of section 96 gives the insurer the right to be made a party to the suit and to defend it. Sub-section (2) clearly provides that such as insurer is not entitled to take any defense which is not specified in it. It can raise those defenses which are provided in that section. However, section 96(2), in our opinion, proceeds on the premise that there is a valid subsisting insurance policy. The insurer, in our view, could raise defense that the policy comes to an end on the transfer of the vehicle subject matter of insurance.