Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.30 seconds)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Majeed on 22 October, 1996

16904 to 16909 of 1996 impliedly overruled the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Majeed's case (supra) is not correctly decided. We therefore, overrule that decision and declare that Sections 4 and 4-A of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as amended by Act 30 of 1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest be not applicable to claim originated in respect of death or permanent total disablement of workman resulting from accidents which occurred prior to September 15, 1995, the date on which the amended provisions came into effect.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

Neeli And Ors. vs Padmanabha Pillai Narayana Pillai And ... on 28 October, 1992

17. Right to claim compensation as well as the obligation to pay the same are created by the Statute itself. It is well settled rule of interpretation that if the law is procedural, there is, no doubt, a presumption that it applies to pending proceedings. If the law is substantive in nature, the normal presumption against retrospectivity still holds good, subject to the principle that the Court must look to the question whether the rights of the parties at the commencement of the proceedings were intended to be modified either expressly or by necessary implication: Neeli v. Narayana Pillai (supra). If the amended provisions are given effect to in the matter of awarding enhanced compensation even with regard to the accident which occurred prior to September 15, 1995, that will affect the existing rights and obligations of the parties. Suppose an accident occurred prior to September 15, 1995, and the claim was decided prior to the said date, the law applicable is the unamended provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Kerala High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next