Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.52 seconds)Section 3 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Leela Devi And Anr. vs Ram Lal Rahu And Anr. on 23 November, 1989
4. Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellants submits that after
notice the appellants appeared before the learned Commissioner and thereafter Award
has been passed. She submits that there is no injury etc on the body of the deceased
and in absence of that the learned Tribunal has wrongly passed the said Award. She
submits that the deceased fell down and became unconscious and death has
occurred in view of that the case made under Sections 3 and 4 of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923 is not made out. She further submits that there is no clear-
cut finding how the death has occurred inspite of that the learned Tribunal has passed
the said Award. Learned counsel for the appellants relied in the case of "Leela Devi
and Another Vs. Ram Lal and Another" reported in ILLN 995. She submits
that the said Award may kindly be quashed.
Som Dutt Builders Ltd. vs Smt. Phool Kumari, Wife Of Late ... on 20 February, 2004
9. The word "accident" has already been defined long ago in Fenton V. J.
3
Thorley and Co., (1903) A.C. 443 and it has been considered in the case of " Som
Dutt Builders Ltd. Vs. Phool Kumari, wife of late Manbirender Singh " 2004
(74) DRJ 626 wherein para 9 it has been held as under;
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Ibrahim Mahommed Issak on 14 August, 1969
11. "Accident" during the course of employment in the workman
compensation Act was also subject matter in the case of "Mackinnon Machenzie
and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak" 1969 (2) SCC 607, para 5 is
quoted hereunder:-
The Companies Act, 1956
Leela Bai vs Seema Chouhan on 22 January, 2019
13. Notional extension was subject matter in the case of " Leela Bai and
Another V. Seema Chouhan and Another" (2019) 4 SCC 325 wherein para 7 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Section 22 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
1