Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Oriental Fire And General Insurance ... vs Aminbhai Pirmohomad Master And Ors. on 28 January, 1986 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982

7. Mr. Shethna drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra v Ramdas Shrivinvas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249, in support of his submission. We fall to understand how this decision of the Supreme Court can at all be pressed into service in the present case. There, the question was whether, after making a concession before the High Court, it could be urged before the Supreme Court that no such concession was made and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, even in that case, observed as follows (at page 1251) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 529 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Mangal Chand vs Forest Department, Through Divisional ... on 18 May, 1984

9. Mr. Shethna also drew our attention to a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in the case of Mangal Chand v Forest Department through Divisional Forest Officer, Nichar, ILR 1984 HP 259; [1985] ACJ 8. The learned Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed therein that tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities must always bear in mind that whereas refusal to condone delay might result in injustice by a meritorious case being thrown out without trial, condonation of delay would, at the highest, result in decision of the case on merits. We fail to understand how this decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court is of any assistance in the present case. The contention which is raised by filing this appeal cannot be said to be of a technical nature. The insurance company has insured the owner of the motor cycle. By insuring the owner of the motor cycle, the insurance company has agreed to indemnify whatever compensation he might have to pay for the injuries caused by the vehicle in question. The question of the insurance company paying the amount of compensation will arise only if and when there is some award passed against the owner of the vehicle. When the owners of the vehicle is not made a party, the question of passing any award against the insurance company does not arise. No award could have been passed and the Tribunal had even no jurisdiction to pass such an award against the insurance company in the absence of the owner. The question which is raised by filing the appeal thus goes to the very root of the matter. It is true that the insurance company did not raise any such contention either in the written statement or at any stage before the Tribunal, but it cannot be said that the insurance company in any way had made any concession that it was liable to pay. The question of waiver also does not arise because this is a pure question of law which again goes to the very root of the matter.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Balkrishna Chatrabhuj Thacker And Ors. vs Devabai And Ors. on 9 November, 1984

15. Mr. Shethna drew our attention to a decision rendered by one us (Coram : J P Desai J) reported in Balkrishna Chatrabhuj Thacker v Devabai w/o Jadavji Hansraj [1985] Gujarat Law Herald 654, in support of his submission that this court should exercise the powers under Order 41, rule 33 of the case. In that case, the question was whether this court should exercise the powers under Order 41, rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, when a decision was rendered by a Full Bench of this court during the pendency of the first appeal in the District Court overruling some decisions of Division Benches of this court, holding that a tenant inducted by a mortgagee was not entitled to protection from being evicted under the Rent Act. The decision was rendered by the Full Bench during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, this court exercised the powers under Order 41, rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, for the reasons recorded in that judgment. Here, there is no change of any circumstances nor any change of law pending this appeal and, therefore, the above decision cannot be pressed into service in the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1