Legal liability

This tag is associated with 4 posts

MODVAT – REFUND OF THE SAME WITH INTEREST AFTER 30 DAYS – the company is liable to pay MODVAT under Central Excise Act on HSD oil used in manufacturing yarns etc., and also liable to pay interest as it was not refunded with in 30 days of notice as the exemption granted to HSD oil was withdrawn by a Notification by central Govt. – High court wrongly find a fault on the government – allowed the writs – Apex court set aside the orders as there is no challange abount the vlaidity of notification or about sec.112 of Finance Act – they can not escape liability to refund the availd MODVAT with interest DESPITE OF NOTIFICATION = Union of India & Ors. Appellants Versus Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Respondent = published in / cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41098

      MODVAT –  REFUND OF THE SAME WITH INTEREST AFTER 30 DAYS –    the company is liable to pay MODVAT under Central Excise Act on HSD oil used in manufacturing yarns etc., and also liable to pay interest as it was not refunded with in 30 days of notice as the exemption … Continue reading

Liability of directors under sec.141 – there must be specific pleadings against the accused to fasten liability under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – A.K. SINGHANIA … APPELLANT VERSUS GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR. …RESPONDENTS judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40882

Liability of directors under sec.141 – there must be specific pleadings against the accused     to fasten  liability under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act  High court quashed the complaint– Apex court confirm the same   =         Section  141  of  the  Act  makes  the  Directors  in  charge  and   responsible to Company “for the … Continue reading

can an Insurance Company disown its liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle although duly licensed to drive light motor vehicle but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle.= The heading “Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks” given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. 18. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer’s right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 20. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and hold that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation so awarded to the dependants of the victim of the fatal accident. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40464   Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO… 4834 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5091 of 2009) S. IYYAPAN Appellant (s) VERSUS M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.: Leave granted. 2. The right of the … Continue reading

Limitation Act: Sections 18, 19 and 20–Acknowledgment of debt–When saves limitation. Muslim Personal Law–Liability to discharge debts de- volves on heirs proportionate to their respective Shares in the estate of the deceased. = One Vellappa Rawther, deceased, had incurred debt by means of two promissory notes for Rs.25,000 and Rs.50,000. In the suits filed on the basis of the promissory notes, the Trial Court granted a decree against the estate of Vellappa Rawther in the hands of defendants 2 to 10. The High Court on appeal modified the decree reducing it to one fourth of the decreed sum and focussed the liability on defendant-Respondent No. 2 absolving others of the re- maining liability on the bar of limitation. Such view was taken as the facts established that the liability to dis- charge debts of Vellappa Rawther after his death was indi- vidually on his heirs proportionate to the extent of their share in the estate devolving on them, and since the debt had become time barred, acknowledgment of the same by de- fendant-respondent No. 2 as well as partial payment of the debt by him rendered him alone liable to meet liability to the extent of one fourth related to the share of the estate which as a Muslim heir he received from the deceased. Before this Court, it was claimed on behalf of the appellant that under sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act the acknowledgment and partial payment saved limitation against all and thus the entire debt could be recovered from defendant-respondent No. 2, he being in possession of the estate lying joint. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: (1) The debt of the deceased gets divided in shares by operation of Muslim Personal Law amongst the heirs proportionate to their shares in the estate. The theory of sanctity of the integrity of the 434 debt is apparently foreign in the case of a deceased muslim leaving debt and some estate both being divisible amongst his heirs. [247G] Mohd. Abdul Qadeer v. Azamatullah Khan and 8 Others, [1974] 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 98; Vasantam Sambasiva Rao v. Sri Krishna Cement and Concrete Works, Tenali 1977 Andhra Law Times Reports at 528; N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman v.N.C. Mohammad Ismail and Others, [1966] 1 SCR 935 at 940, re- ferred to. (2) It would be right to treat it settled that muslim heirs are independent owners of their specific shares simul- taneously in the estate and debts of the deceased, their liability fixed under the personal law proportionate to the extent of their shares. [248H] Jafri Begum v. Amir Muhammad Khan, [1885] Vol. 7 ILR Allahabad series, referred to. (3) The heirs of a muslim are by themselves independent debtors; the debt having been split by operation of law. Inter se, they have no jural relationship as co-debtors or joint debtors so as to fall within the shadow of contrac- tors, partners, executors or mortgagees or in a class akin to them. They succeed to the estate as tenants-in-common in specific shares. [250D] (4) Even a signed written acknowledgment by the princi- pal or through his agent would bind the principal and not anyone else standing in jural relationship with the princi- pal in accordance with section 20(2) of the Limitation Act. The Muslim heirs inter-se have no such relationship. [250E] (5) If the debt is one and indivisible, payment by one will interrupt limitation against all the debtors unless they come within the exception laid down in section 20(2). And if the debt is susceptible of division and though seem- ingly one consists really of several distinct debts each one of which is payable by one of the obligors separately and not by the rest, section 20 keeps alive his part of the debt which has got to be discharged by the person who has made payment of interest. It cannot affect separate shares of the other debtors unless on the principal of agency, express or implied, the payment can be said to be a payment on their behalf also. [250H; 251A] Abheswari Dasya and Another v. Baburali Shaikh and Others, AIR 1937 Cal. 191, referred to. 435 (6) The property of the co-heirs supposedly in posses- sion of defendant-respondent No. 2 cannot be touched direct- ly in his hand unless the co-heirs being parties to the suit are held liable to pay their share of the debt; the debt being recoverable. [251F] =1991 AIR 720, 1990( 1 )Suppl.SCR 433, 1990( 4 )SCC 672, 1990( 2 )SCALE481 , 1991( 5 )JT 420

PETITIONER: P.N. VEETI NARAYANI Vs. RESPONDENT: PATHUMMA BEEVI AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT13/09/1990 BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. AHMADI, A.M. (J) CITATION: 1991 AIR 720 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 433 1990 SCC (4) 672 JT 1991 (5) 420 1990 SCALE (2)481 ACT: Limitation Act: Sections 18, 19 and 20–Acknowledgment of debt–When saves limitation. Muslim … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,037 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com