State Of Kerala vs M. K. Krishnan Nair & Ors.Andk. ... on 14 February, 1978
Further in the above-said State of Kerala v. K.K. Padmavathi 1983 ACJ 707 (Kerala), it has been further observed as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.49 seconds)National Insurance Co. vs Diwaliben on 15 April, 1981
The above referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Diwaliben 1982 ACJ (Supp) 610 (Gujarat), is distinguishable. The subject-matter of the appeal therein by the insurance company was on the quantum of compensation itself since the insurance company thereof in its appeal sought to be fully exonerated from its liability.
United India Fire And General Insurance ... vs Pallamparty Indiramma And Ors. on 21 August, 1981
In support of this preliminary objection, the said counsel relied on the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. H.N. Rama Prasad 1985 ACJ 864 (Karnataka), State of Kerala v. K.K. Padmavathi 1983 ACJ 707 (Kerala) and United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pallamparty Indiramma 1982 ACJ 521 (AP). After going through the said decisions, we find that these decisions fully support the above-said submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
The Union Co-Operative Insurance ... vs Lazarammal Ravel And Ors. on 30 July, 1973
The other decision cited by the learned Counsel, viz., Union Cooperative Insurance Society v. Lazarammal , only says generally that cross-objection can be filed in accident claim cases also.
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Kiran Lata And Ors. on 23 September, 1991
Then Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. v. Kiran Lata 1993 ACJ 130 (Rajasthan), dealing with the scope of Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, has no application to the present case where the cross-objection filed itself is not maintainable as stated above.
Nirmala Bala Ghose And Another vs Balai Chand Ghose And Ors on 29 March, 1965
Further the Supreme Court has clearly explained the restrictive scope of Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, in Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Baku Chand Ghose and Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar .
Mehta Madan Lal vs National Insurance Company Limited And ... on 7 January, 1983
3. But, the learned Counsel for the appellant argues that in the above-said case before the Supreme Court, the award amount itself was Rs. 42,000/-, that is, below the above-said sum of Rs. 50,000/- and that is why there is no scope for apportionment in that case. We agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant and we hold that the insurance company could be made liable only for a sum of Rs. 50.000/- out of the above-said total award amount of Rs. 76,800/-. The learned Counsel for the owner, 7th respondent, could not argue anything contra to the above-said argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant. No other point was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
Choudhary Sahu (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Bihar on 14 December, 1981
Further the Supreme Court has clearly explained the restrictive scope of Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, in Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Baku Chand Ghose and Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar .
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs H.N. Rama Prasad And Ors. on 13 December, 1983
In support of this preliminary objection, the said counsel relied on the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. H.N. Rama Prasad 1985 ACJ 864 (Karnataka), State of Kerala v. K.K. Padmavathi 1983 ACJ 707 (Kerala) and United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pallamparty Indiramma 1982 ACJ 521 (AP). After going through the said decisions, we find that these decisions fully support the above-said submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
1