Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1946/1982 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1946 of 1982
With
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1947 of 1982
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
ORIENTAL
FIRE & GENERAL INSU. CO. LTD - Appellant
Versus
GATSANGJI
PRADHANSINGJI & 5 - Defendants
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
SB VAKIL with MS. ARCHANA ACHARYA for Appellant:
NOTICE NOT RECD
BACK for Defendant : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendants : 2 - 5.
MR
NS SHETH for Defendants :
6,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 28/09/2010
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
.
Heard
learned advocate for the parties.
The
appellant- original opponent no.6 in M.A.C. Petition No. 299 of
1980 and M.A.C. Petition No. 300 of 1980, has preferred these
appeals assailing the common award in judgment dated 1/5/1982. The
fact remains to be noted that the award impugned was subject matter
of challenge in group of First Appeals being First Appeal No.
1945/1982 & 1949/1982, and First Appeal No.1950/1982 &
1952/1982, which came to be disposed of by this Court (Coram: K.S.
Jhaveri, J) vide order dated 24/7/2006 and 7/8/2006 respectively.
These two appeals were left out.
Shri
Sheth, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 in both the
appeals fairly submitted that, in view of the fact that these two
appeals have been left out of the group which were placed before the
Court, and when there is judgment allowing those appeals, these
appeals would be governed by the same reasoning & orders of
those appeals also, and therefore present appeals may accordingly be
allowed, and there is no need for elaborate reasoning.
Heard
learned advocate for the parties. In view of Apex Court’s
observation in case of SMT.
MALLAWWA etc. Appellants V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others,
Respondents, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court, 589, wherein
Apex Court was absolutely clear with regard to liability of the
insurer in such a situation.
In
paragraph no.13 of the Judgment, the Apex Court has observed as
under:-
13.
The 1939 Act is now replaced by the 1988 Act. Section 147 which
corresponds to old Section 95 has been substantially altered by the
Legislature. Therefore, the above interpretation of Section 95 of
the 1939 Act will govern the cases which have arisen under the 1939
Act. According to our interpretation of Section 95(1) (b) (i) and
the proviso, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are allowed.
….
In
view of this, both the appeals are allowed as they are governed by
the reasonings given in the judgments of this Court in the above
referred group of appeals in which these appeals are also forming
part. Orders accordingly.
[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]
/vgn
Top