Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.18 seconds)Northern India Hotels Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 21 October, 1983
5. Shri Sinha has also brought to our notice a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd, v. Saifuddin (1991) 2 A. C.C. 222, in which the learned single Judge referred to a Bench decision of that Court in Northern India Insurance Company v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation: 1973 M.P.L.J. 548, in which it was held that in an appeal by an insurance company, which is not the employer, the condition regarding deposit does not apply.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Mohinder Singh And Anr. on 23 January, 1986
The Bench thus over-ruled the earlier view taken by a learned Single Judge of that Court in New India Assurance Company v. Mohinder Singh: 1986 A.C.J. 110.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Narendra Samal And Anr. on 2 November, 1992
13. We, therefore, hold that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Manorama Sahu 's case as well as in Shankar Behera 's case cannot be preferred to the one taken by another learned single Judge in Narendra Samal's case. It is the latter view which has our concurrence.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M. Jayarama Naik And Anr. on 6 August, 1981
6. Shri Mohanty, on the other hand, has placed reliance on a decision by another learned Single Judge of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narendra Samal (1993) 1 T.A.C. 368, in which, after referring to a Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in New India Assurance Company v. M. Jayaram Naik 1982 A.C.J. 3, it was held that the third proviso would apply to an insurer also. This view was taken because the insurer really steps into the shoes of the insured while filing appeal against the order of the Commissioner, because the insurer is to indemnify the employer who is saddled with the liability for payment of compensation ordered by the Commissioner, by further stating that it is the person aggrieved who can file the appeal.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sankar Behera And Ors. on 1 September, 1987
13. We, therefore, hold that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Manorama Sahu 's case as well as in Shankar Behera 's case cannot be preferred to the one taken by another learned single Judge in Narendra Samal's case. It is the latter view which has our concurrence.
Khirod Nayak vs Commissioner For Workmen'S ... on 16 April, 1991
In this connection it would be relevant to refer to a Bench decision of this Court in Khirod Nayak v. Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation: 72 (1991) C.L.T. 643, in which the question for examination was whether the insurer is also liable to pay the penalty visualised by Section 4-A(3) of the Act. That question had come up for consideration, because that section states that where an employer is in default, interest can be awarded, which shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty. The Bench stated that mere mention about the liability being of the employer is not enough to exonerate the insurer to indemnify the employer in this regard because of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - that case having dealt with this aspect of the matter arising out of a motor accident involving an employee. It was stated in this connection thattheprimary liability of paying compensation is fastened on the employer, and if the insurer is liable to indemnify the employer for the latter's liability to pay compensation, there exists no cogent reason to exonerate the insurer in paying the penalty fastened on the employer by Section 4-A(3) of the Act. So, it was held that the mere fact that Section 4-A(3) has spoken about 'employer' is not enough to exonerate the insurer.
Sharma S.D. vs Ramesh Mahakud And Anr. on 16 April, 1991
It would be appropriate to state in this connection that a contrary view in this regard had been taken by a learned single Judge of this Court hi S.O. Sharma v. Ramesh Mahakul : I.L.R. (1991) 1 Cutt, 707, which, however, cannot, in view of the Bench decision, hold the field.