<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (12) TMI 638 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295903</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision to award Rs. 2,54,148/- with 12% interest to the claimant under the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act. It held that the amended provisions of the Act, including the increased deemed monthly wage, applied retrospectively to pending cases. The court upheld that the Insurance Company&#039;s defense was limited by Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, preventing challenges to the compensation amount. The appellant&#039;s argument against retrospective application of the amendment was rejected, and costs were awarded to the respondent with instructions for payment to the claimant through the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Commissioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:41:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 638 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295903</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision to award Rs. 2,54,148/- with 12% interest to the claimant under the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act. It held that the amended provisions of the Act, including the increased deemed monthly wage, applied retrospectively to pending cases. The court upheld that the Insurance Company&#039;s defense was limited by Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, preventing challenges to the compensation amount. The appellant&#039;s argument against retrospective application of the amendment was rejected, and costs were awarded to the respondent with instructions for payment to the claimant through the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Commissioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>