Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RAM KALI AND ORS.

Decided
5 January 2004
Judges listed
V.N. KHARE, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2004] 1 S.C.R. 176 · 2004 INSC 2

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This Special Leave Petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 20th December, 2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner herein questioning an award dated 6-9-2002 made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad was dismissed. The High Court has dismissed the aforementioned appeal inter a/ia on the ground that the driving licence of the offending vehicle had been found to be fake. The learned Tribunal, however, arrived at the finding of fact that the first respondent herein has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by plying the Maruti Van on hire/i-eward at the time of accident-.

p. 176, margin E

The said question, it appears from the impugned judgment of the High Court, was not adverted to before it.

p. 176, margin G

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. RAM KALI 177

p. 177

In view of the fact that both the Tribunal and the High Court had A exercised their discretion in favour of the claimant. We do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article l 36 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No costs. K.K.T. Petition dismissed.

p. 177