Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)Sulochana And Ors. vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 9 October, 2003
4. The petitioner had also placed reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Sulochana and Ors. v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, which laid down that a person whose annual income is beyond the maximum provided under the Second Schedule to the Act can maintain a claim petition under Section 163A of the Act. The petitioner claimed that in view of the said judgment it was open to the petitioner to notionally bring down his income to Rs. 40,000/-per annum.
Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda on 18 March, 2004
8. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 supported the order passed by the learned Tribunal and contented that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Girishbhai Soni and Ors. (supra) the benefit of Section 163A of the Act cannot be availed by the petitioner as his income was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents was that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act are distinct and for the specified class of citizens whose annual income is Rs. 40,000/- or less.
Guruanna Vedi And Anr. vs General Manager, Karnataka State Road ... on 10 April, 2001
In support of his submissions, the petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Guruanna Vadi and Anr. v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. and also the judgment of this Court in Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. v. Hardeep Singh and Anr. (2005-2) 140 P.L.R. 503 and claimed that the petitioner be allowed to scale down his claim in a petition filed under Section 163A of the Act.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ... vs Baldev Kumar Nayyer And Ors. on 13 December, 2005
9. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Baldev Kumar Nayyer and Ors. (2006-2) 143 P.L.R. 75 has been pleased to lay down as under:
Gurmeet Kaur And Ors. vs Hardeep Singh And Anr. on 7 February, 2005
In support of his submissions, the petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Guruanna Vadi and Anr. v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. and also the judgment of this Court in Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. v. Hardeep Singh and Anr. (2005-2) 140 P.L.R. 503 and claimed that the petitioner be allowed to scale down his claim in a petition filed under Section 163A of the Act.
1