Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 94 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt. Chand Kanwar vs Mannaram And Ors. on 28 September, 1984
The Hon'ble Justice G.M. Lodha, after discussing both these cases, observed that Chand Kanwar's case, AIR 1986 Raj 2 ; [1988] 63 Comp Cas 721 (Raj) has not been overruled, and it had not been declared no longer good law by the Division Bench and that the observations made by the Division Bench were in the nature of obiter dicta only. It was further mentioned that it will be for a larger Bench in a proper case to consider whether the observations made in this respect are correct or not, so that the clouds which have gathered on the horizon are cleared and no confusion is left. We shall be adverting towards this aspect a little later.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
In this era of social justice, we cannot ignore the observations of Justice Krishna Iyer (as he then was) in a number of decisions, appealing to the judges to have an edge of baneficial interpretation for the have-nots and innocent persons which are based on the clarion call of the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, quoted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sangh, AIR 1980 SC 1896, 1932: " whenever you are in doubt.....apply the following test Recall the face of the poorest and weakest man whom you may have seen and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him."
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987
4. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanatnal Aswani, AIR 1964 SC 1736 ; [1964] 34 Comp Cas 693 (SC), Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR 1987 SC 1184; [1987] 62 Comp Cas 138 (SC) and Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 1624.
Sohan Lal And Ors. vs Bal Kishan Ghanu Mal on 19 March, 1959
We are not convinced by the views expressed by the Division Bench in Sohan Lal's case [1987] ACJ 113, interpreting the decision in Chand Kanwar, AIR 1986 Raj 2; [1988] 63 Comp Cas 721, more so because they are in the nature of obiter dicta only, as in that case, this point was never agitated at any earlier stage.
Sampat Lal And Anr. vs Geeta Devi And Ors. on 10 September, 1985
7. Our attention was also drawn by learned counsel for the respondent to another decision of this court by a single judge in Kota Sand Co. v. Santosh Talwar [1985] ACJ 98 as also another decision of this court in Sampat Lal v. Geeta Devi [1984] RLR 1052, but none of these two cases has any relevancy because there is no discussion on the point which is involved in the case at hand because in Santosh Talwar's case [1985] ACJ 98, the insurance policy was not produced and Sampat Lal's case [1984] RLR 1052 was not a case of a comprehensive policy.
Darshani Devi And Ors. vs Sheo Ram And Ors. on 11 September, 1986
9. Reliance was also placed by the appellant on a recent decision of this court in Smt. Darshani Devi v. Shri Sheo Ram [1989] 65 Comp Cas 353 wherein the learned single judge, referring to his earlier judgment in Smt. Chand Kanwar, AIR 1986 Raj 2; [1988] 63 Comp Cas 721 (Raj) held that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited.