Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.22 seconds)The Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002
Section 22C in The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod on 24 April, 2019
11. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod reported in (2019) 6 SCC 175, has set aside the judgement of the NCDRC, whereby the NCDRC had held that the failure of the insured to disclose a previous insurance policy as required under the policy proposal form would not influence the decision of a prudent insurer to issue the policy in question and therefore the insurer was disentitled from repudiating its liability. Hon'ble Apex Court, while allowing the repudiation of the insurance claim, held that :-
Bajaj Allianz Lic Ltd vs Dalbir Kaur on 11 January, 2019
12. The same view was again taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. and others Vs. Dalbir Kau reported in AIR 2020 SC 5210.
All India General Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... vs S.P. Maheswari on 5 November, 1959
13. The Division Bench of Madras High Court in All India General Insurance Co., Ltd. V. S. P. Maheshwari reported in AIR 1960 Mad 484 after taking into consideration the history of insurance laws in United States of America, in England and in India stated in paragraph 10, which reads as follows :-
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Syed Zaigham Ali And Anr. on 21 July, 2015
14. A Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kanpur Nagar Vs. Syed Zaigham Ali and another reported in 2016 (3) AllLJ289 was pleased to held that the provisions contained under Section 22 (C) of the Act, 1987 are mandatory and it was incumbent upon the PLA to have conducted conciliation proceeding to settle the dispute. In paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgement it was held that the Court is constrained to observe that PLAs in the state are not functioning within the parameter of the 1987 Act, erratic orders are being passed even on matters which do not fall within their domain. In paragraph 27 certain guidelines were framed in the aforesaid judgement, which reads as follows :-
Canara Bank vs G.S. Jayarama on 19 May, 2022
22. Permanent Lok Adalat Moradabad is directed to pass fresh order after following the complete procedure under the law as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra) most expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date reply filed by the petitioner.