<?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>2020 (4) TMI 902 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302364</link>
    <description>In a hybrid professional engagement, employee status must be assessed on the totality of the contractual relationship, including control, integration, economic reality and whether the person worked on his own account. Applying that approach, the deceased honorary surgeon was held to be an independent professional, not a regular employee, so the employment-based exclusion in the motor policy did not apply. The policy was also strictly construed: because additional premium had been paid for personal accident cover for unnamed passengers, any ambiguity had to be resolved contra proferentem, and the insurer could not extend the exclusion beyond its clear meaning. The High Court view was set aside and the Tribunal&#039;s award restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=679752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 902 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302364</link>
      <description>In a hybrid professional engagement, employee status must be assessed on the totality of the contractual relationship, including control, integration, economic reality and whether the person worked on his own account. Applying that approach, the deceased honorary surgeon was held to be an independent professional, not a regular employee, so the employment-based exclusion in the motor policy did not apply. The policy was also strictly construed: because additional premium had been paid for personal accident cover for unnamed passengers, any ambiguity had to be resolved contra proferentem, and the insurer could not extend the exclusion beyond its clear meaning. The High Court view was set aside and the Tribunal&#039;s award restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>