Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Ved Prakash Garg vs Premi Devi & Ors on 25 September, 1997
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 with regard to the cross-objection filed by the insurance company contended that in view of the terms of the policy, the insurance company cannot be held liable for the payment of penalty imposed on the employer under Section 4-A of Workmen's Compensation Act. The insurance company be exonerated from the liability of payment of penalty imposed on the employer under Section 4-A of the Act. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1998 ACJ 1 (SC).
The Competition Act, 2002
Section 4 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Shankarlal vs General Manager, Central Railway And ... on 14 March, 1990
9. This court in case of Shankarlal v. General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay V.T., 1990 ACJ 1028 (MP), considering the point in dispute has held that:
Bharat Singh vs Pluton Cement Pvt. Ltd. on 2 April, 1997
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation should have been awarded taking into consideration the disability in the earning capacity of the appellant due to injuries caused to him in the said accident. The Commissioner has committed an error in assessing the compensation on the basis of the physical disability found on the right leg of the appellant as a result of the said accident. Learned counsel relied on the decisions of this court in cases of Bharat Singh v. Pluton Cement Pvt. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 496 (MP) and Shankarlal v. General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay V.T., 1990 ACJ 1028 (MP).
1