Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.47 seconds)Section 92A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 110CC in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Ramchand (Dead) By Legal ... vs Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj And Anr. on 23 July, 1969
In Ramchand v. Janki Ballabh Ji, AIR 1970 SC 532 powers under this provision were exercised by the Supreme Court itself to direct the Court of first instance to frame a scheme for management of temple and its properties to make the decree for possession effective.
Kallu Maharaj vs Meenabai And Ors. on 23 March, 1989
The Insurance policy does not cover such a risk. Indeed an Insurance Company is not expected to cover risk contrary to law. It must, therefore, be held that the Insurance Company was not liable. Earlier decision in Chameli Devi v. New India Insurance Co., 1982 MPLJ 557 and recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Kallu Maharaj v. Meenabai (AIR 1989 Madh Pra 167) are the authorities to support such a proposition. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, however, is that it is always the duty of the Insurance Company to prove breach of the policy condition and since the Company has not pleaded so, it should be held that the Insurance Policy covers such a risk.
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987
Reliance has been placed in S. Kandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR 1987 SC 1184. The Supreme Court, in the said case, was considering whether the exclusion clause of the policy prohibited driving a vehicle by a person other than one holding the driving licence and, in that context, held that mere breach of clause does not absolve insurer of his liability and he has to establish that insured himself was guilty of committing breach of a condition of insurance policy. The Supreme Court took pains to clarify that it was not the contract of insurance but the statutory provision defining the conditions of exemption which was being
interpreted. It must, therefore, be interpreted in the spirit in which the same have been enacted accompanied by an anxiety to ensure that the protection is not nullified by the backward looking interpretation which serves to defeat the provision rather than to fulfil its life-aim. This case is not the authority for the proposition that even in those cases where the breach of policy condition is obvious, the Court should insist on proof. Proof of what? In a case like it mere filing of the Insurance Policy would be sufficient, which has been done in this case and is sufficient to discharge the burden of proof, if any. The policy clearly specified that it was in relation to the truck intended to be used as carrier of goods. Under the circumstances, no question of not complying with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court should arise. In this view of the matter, the award of the Tribunal that Insurance Company was not liable is affirmed.