RAJ KHOWA v. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited vs. Competition Commission of India

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

…me Court of India in number of cases has upheld parallel investigation/adjudication by different Regulators/Agencies/ Adjudicators. She submitted that in Securities Exchange Board of India Vs. Pan Asia Advisors Limited and another, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 71 (paragraph No.92) it is held that SEBI can exercise its powers while action is taken for violation under FEMA or RBI Act. In S. Sukumar Vs. Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants in India and Ors., reported in (2018) 14 SCC 360 (paragraphs No.45 and 46) it is held that Institute of Chartered Accountants, a statutory body can investig…

M/S Tumkur Dcc Bank Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross objection

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

…D.,’, (2014) 15 SCC 450]. It is well settled in law that burden to prove breach of duty on the part of the victim lies on the insurance company and the insurance company has to discharge the burden. [SEE: ‘USHA RAJ KHOWA VS. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES’, (2009) 14 SCC 71]. In ‘MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.’, (2018) 5 SCC 656]. In the background of the aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. 11. For the sake of convenience, evidence from MVC No.22/2016 has been referred to. Admittedly, PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. No other independen…

Intel Services Llc vs. The Deputy Director of

In the result, the appeals as well as cross objections

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

…D.,’, (2014) 15 SCC 450]. It is well settled in law that burden to prove breach of duty on the part of the victim lies on the insurance company and the insurance company has to discharge the burden. [SEE: ‘USHA RAJ KHOWA VS. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES’, (2009) 14 SCC 71]. The Supreme Court in ’JIJU KURUVILA AND ORS. VS. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN AND ORS.’, (2013) 9 SCC 166 has held that mere position of the vehicles after the accident as shown in scene mahazar cannot be a substantial proof as to rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Te Connectivity India P Ltd

In the result, the appeals as well as cross objections

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

…D.,’, (2014) 15 SCC 450]. It is well settled in law that burden to prove breach of duty on the part of the victim lies on the insurance company and the insurance company has to discharge the burden. [SEE: ‘USHA RAJ KHOWA VS. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES’, (2009) 14 SCC 71]. The Supreme Court in ’JIJU KURUVILA AND ORS. VS. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN AND ORS.’, (2013) 9 SCC 166 has held that mere position of the vehicles after the accident as shown in scene mahazar cannot be a substantial proof as to rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Te Connectivity Inida P Ltd

In the result, the appeals as well as cross objections

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

…D.,’, (2014) 15 SCC 450]. It is well settled in law that burden to prove breach of duty on the part of the victim lies on the insurance company and the insurance company has to discharge the burden. [SEE: ‘USHA RAJ KHOWA VS. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES’, (2009) 14 SCC 71]. The Supreme Court in ’JIJU KURUVILA AND ORS. VS. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN AND ORS.’, (2013) 9 SCC 166 has held that mere position of the vehicles after the accident as shown in scene mahazar cannot be a substantial proof as to rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Badagabettu Credit Co Operative Society Ltd

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

…D.,’, (2014) 15 SCC 450]. It is well settled in law that burden to prove breach of duty on the part of the victim lies on the insurance company and the insurance company has to discharge the burden. [SEE: ‘USHA RAJ KHOWA VS. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES’, (2009) 14 SCC 71]. 8. From perusal of the record it is evident that PW1 viz., the wife of the deceased is not an eye witness. Ex.P1 FIR and Ex.P2 Complaint have been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.P3 Spot mazhar indicates that the accident occurred 5 feet away from the barricade raised in the middle of the road for the construction of…