<?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>2009 (3) TMI 1088 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296202</link>
    <description>A person whose learner&#039;s licence has expired is not treated as duly licensed unless a valid driving licence is subsequently obtained in accordance with law. Because the appellant&#039;s learner&#039;s licence had expired before the accident and he failed to prove valid licensing, the insurer was not liable to indemnify him. The Court also held that omission to frame a separate issue on who was driving the tractor caused no prejudice, as the pleadings had raised the dispute and both lower courts had recorded a factual finding that the appellant himself was driving. The award against the appellant was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2021 11:06:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=649158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 1088 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296202</link>
      <description>A person whose learner&#039;s licence has expired is not treated as duly licensed unless a valid driving licence is subsequently obtained in accordance with law. Because the appellant&#039;s learner&#039;s licence had expired before the accident and he failed to prove valid licensing, the insurer was not liable to indemnify him. The Court also held that omission to frame a separate issue on who was driving the tractor caused no prejudice, as the pleadings had raised the dispute and both lower courts had recorded a factual finding that the appellant himself was driving. The award against the appellant was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>