Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sohan Lal Passi vs P. Sesh Reddy & Ors on 17 July, 1996
reported in AIR 1987 SC 1184 and the principle of law enumerated in a subsequent three Judge Bench of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2627, their Lordships summed up the legal position thus :--
New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001
8. Our case is exactly similar and identical to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. In our case also, there is a clear dispute and controversy with respect to the validity of the driving licence in question. In our case also, the Tribunal did not return any definite finding on this question because, erringly or otherwise it did not consider this question, perhaps more particularly because the Insurance Company was not very vigilant and careful in ensuring that it availed of the opportunity of leading evidence in the Tribunal. In fact, our order dated 19th September, 2001, does suggest that initially the Insurance Company might have been negligent in taking adequate steps in time for adducing evidence. That, however, should not deflect or detain us in so far as the question of the appellant- Insurance Company being asked to pay the award amount to the claimants, but, after such payment, to take steps for recovery of that amount from the insured-owner if it is ultimately found that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. That is the ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co.. Shimla v. Kamla and Ors. and no other interpretation of the aforesaid judgment is either warranted or is possible.
Section 13 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sucha Singh And Ors. on 29 September, 1993
The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sucha Singh. 1994 (1) ACJ 374, that renewal of a document which purports to be a driving licence, will probe even a forged document with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propound a very dangerous proposition. If that proposition is, allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counter-feiters the words over as they would be encouraged to manufactures fake documents in (sic). What was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery.
The Insurance Act, 1938
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987
7. Relying upon an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan.
1