This tag is associated with 112 posts

whether petitioner could have laid a claim against respondent no. 1-the Insurance Co, as insurance on the date of the theft was not in the name of petitioner but respondent no.2.=“As we see the position that emerges on 7.10.2007 when the vehicle was stolen was that the insurance policy was in the name of respondent no. 2 and it was respondent no. 2 who could have laid a claim for the amount of insurance on account of theft of the vehicle. Respondent No. 1 did not have any insurable interest subsisting on 7.10.2007 and therefore, could not have made any claim from the Insurance Co. on account of theft of the tractor”. 9. Petitioner in its entire complaint has made no averment against respondent no. 1 that he has paid any amount to respondent no. 1 for the purpose of insurance of the vehicle or any insurance policy was issued in his name. Thus, admittedly there is no privity of contract between petitioner and respondent no. 1.

          NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI                      REVISION PETITION NO.   102    OF 2011  (From order dated 25.10.2010 in  Appeal No. 2201 of 2009   of the  State  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh )   Amar Singh Mandelia, S/o Shri Bowad Singh, R/o Village Janarpura, Post- Bijauli, District Gwalior (M. P.) …Petitioner     1.       ICICI Lombard … Continue reading

claim of the assessee for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”).The assessee is a public limited company, classified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a non-banking finance company. It is engaged in the business of hire purchase, leasing and real estate etc. The vehicles, on which depreciation was claimed, are stated to have been purchased by the assessee against direct payment to the manufacturers. The assessee, as a part of its business, leased out these vehicles to its customers and thereafter, had no physical affiliation with the vehicles. In fact, lessees were registered as the owners of the vehicles, in the certificate of registration issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”). = where the business of the assessee consists of hiring out machinery and/ or where the income derived by the assessee from the hiring of such machinery is business income, the assessee must be considered as having used the machinery for the purpose of business. 40. In the present case, the business of the assessee consists of hiring out machinery and trucks where the income derived by the assessee from hiring of such machinery is business income. Therefore, the assessee- appellant viz. ICDS should be considered as having used the trucks for the purpose of business. 41. It was further brought to our notice that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its judgment in ITRC No. 789 of 1998 for the asst. year 1986- 87 in the case of the assessee- appellant itself (viz. ICDS) has already decided the issue in question in favour of the assessee, confirming the decision of the CIT (A) and the ITAT holding that the assessee company is entitled to the investment allowance and additional depreciation. In this judgment of the Karnataka High Court the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 231 ITR 308 was relied upon. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant- company is entitled to a higher rate of depreciation at 50% on the trucks leased out by it. We therefore, reverse the orders of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue.” 32. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the High Court erred in law in reversing the decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals are allowed; the impugned judgments are set aside and the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court, extracted in para 6 (supra), are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs.


(1) If an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay any amount in law to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can the Court yet compel it to pay the amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. (2) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of the Constitution, and what is the scope of Article 142? Does Article 142 permit the Court to create a liability where there is none?” = The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in Baljit Kaur5 and Challa Bharathamma6 should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, claimant was 28 years’ old. He is now about 48 years. The claimant was a driver on heavy vehicle and due to the accident he has been rendered permanently disabled. He has not been able to get compensation so far due to stay order passed by this Court. He cannot be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount. The insurance company has already deposited the entire awarded amount pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 01.08.2011 and the said amount has been invested in a fixed deposit account. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (Respondent No. 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the insurance company before this Court along-with accrued interest. The insurance company (appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent No. 2 herein). The recovery of the amount by the insurance company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in the case of Challa Bharathamma6 . 26. Appeal is allowed and disposed of as above with no order as to costs.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20127 of 2011) Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. …… Appellant Vs. Saju P. Paul and Another ……Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, insurance company, is in appeal by special leave … Continue reading

Whether the ‘business hours’ did not include the lunch break?. an incident of theft, which took place in the shop premises of the Complainant/respondent on 8.5.2003 during the lunch hours. Gold ornaments allegedly worth over Rs.21 lakhs and some cash were stolen. Acting on the FIR lodged in this behalf, the Police recovered ornaments worth Rs.12,47,300/-. Therefore, as observed by the State Commission, there is no dispute about the fact of theft.— “Perused the record and documents tendered by the parties. There is no dispute regarding theft of jewelry occurred during the lunch hours. The Police were able to recover only Rs.12,47,000/-. However, total loss due to theft was valued to Rs.22,93,500/-. The Respondent/ Complainant subscribed to the insurance policy providing insurance cover to the ornaments in the shop. The policy document covers display window of the jewelry [included in the total section 1 Sum Insured] and also provided insurance cover for the jewelry kept elsewhere. Total sum Insured under the policy is Rs.21,51,000/-. The survey report mentioned that AC unit had fallen on the floor and on top of it chair has been kept to entire into the shop with intention to burglary. A big ply had also been placed behind the AC grill and AC grill had been cut opened so as to get access for burglary. The survey report is an important piece of document and cannot be ignored. Therefore, intent of burglary of the jewelry by breaking open the shop is clearly established form the record. Theft of jewelry is undisputed fact.” 3. Yet, the claim of the Complainant for the remaining value of Rs.10,46,500/- was rejected by the OP/revision petitioner.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 2833 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 14.03.2012 in First Appeal No. A/06/2448 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having office at 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra Having its Regional office at Delhi Regional Office-II, Level-V, … Continue reading

suit against disconnection for excess loading – Apart from asserting that it was engaged in the business of manufacture of calendars, diaries, stationery items etc. and denying any misuse of electricity or exceeding the sanctioned load, the plaintiff in its reply dated 06.01.1992 had not taken any specific stand with regard to the findings of the inspection dated 14.06.1991. The said reply dated 06.01.1992 does not contain any specific reference to the findings of the inspection regarding installation of machineries which are normally used for manufacture of PVC conduit pipes. To make the discussions complete we would also like to observe in the present case that plaintiff was given an option to remove the excess load failing which it was made clear it will be charged at the higher rate of tariff. We have also found that the bill for Rs.3,38.378.02 for the period 06.06.1991 to February 1992 was prepared and submitted for payment by the plaintiff in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply in force in the DESU and that the said bill was prepared after consideration of the stand taken by the plaintiff in its reply dated 06.01.1992. No infirmity or illegality is disclosed in any of the actions of the defendant infringing any known right of the plaintiff so as to entitle it to a decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 8207 of 2012 Arising out of SLP (C) No.33409 of 2009) Shree Om Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. … Respondent J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant … Continue reading

whether in the case at hand the policy is an “Act Policy” or “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. There has been no discussion either by the tribunal or the High Court in this regard. True it is, before us Annexure P-1 has been filed which is a policy issued by the insurer. It only mentions the policy to be a comprehensive policy but we are inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of the terms of the entire policy to arrive at the conclusion whether it is really a package policy to cover the liability of an occupant in a car.” 14. We have quoted in extenso to reiterate the legal position. In the case at hand, the policy has not been brought on record. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would submit that it is an “Act Policy”. The learned counsel for the respondent would seriously dispute and submit that extra premium might have been paid or it may be a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. When Certificate of Insurance is filed but the policy is not brought on record it only conveys that the vehicle is insured. The nature of policy cannot be discerned from the same. Thus, we are disposed to think that it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the tribunal to enable the insurer to produce the policy and grant liberty to the parties to file additional documents and also lead further evidence as advised, and we order accordingly. 15. It needs no special emphasis to state that whether the insurer would be liable or not would depend upon the nature of the policy when it is brought on record in a manner as required by law. 16. As far as quantum is concerned, though numbers of grounds were urged, yet the learned counsel for the parties did not really address on the same and, therefore, we do not think it necessary to dwell upon the same and treat it as just and proper compensation requiring no interference. 17. In the result, the appeals preferred by the insurer, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove and to that extent the award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the tribunal and the appeals preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1345-1346 OF 2009 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant Versus Surendra Nath Loomba and Others …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1347-1348 OF 2009 Surendra Nath Loomba …Appellant Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & ors. …Respondents   J U D G M E N T … Continue reading

36. The thermostat of the car had failed in this case. It was replaced during the warranty period. After that there was no deficiency or service on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant ought to have collected the car as required by the letter dated 10.5.2006 and returned the gesture car. That was not done. It was done only after police complaint was filed. Complainant decision to collect the car conveyed by letter dated 24.11.2006 was the right decision. The complainant was ill-advised to change the same and file the complaint. The complainant has deprived himself of the use of his car for all these years and he has no one to blame. The complainant was not entitled either for replacement of the car or its engine or refund of its price when the Ops had replaced the thermostat which was a replaceable part, under the warranty.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     REVISION PETITION NO. 3220 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 28.06.2012 in First Appeal No. 05 of 2012 of the  Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, Goa)     M/s. Sydney & Lydon Realtors & Associates, through its Managing Partner Cosme, Fransico Isidor Cabral Fernandes, Resident of 693, Shallom, Opp. Custom, Quarters Center, Alto Porvorim, Bardez Goa                                               …      Petitioner (s)   Versus   … Continue reading

In view of my findings on issue No.4, the election petition cannot succeed, because the High Court cannot form an opinion that the 8th respondent was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat on the date of his election or that his nomination has been improperly accepted or that any non-compliance with the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or any Rules or Orders made under the Act has been committed within the meaning of Section 100(1) of the Act and consequently, an order has to be made dismissing the election petition under Section 98(a) of the Act, while leaving the costs to be borne by the parties respectively under Section 99(1)(b) of the Act. 64. Accordingly, the election petition is dismissed without costs. A copy of this order be communicated to the Election Commission of India and the Speaker of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in terms of Section 103 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. _____________________

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Election Petition No.7 of 2009 21/08/2012 S.A.K. Mynoddin The Chief Election Commissioner,Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri V. Mallik COUNSEL FOR 1 TO 7 RESPONDENTS: — (R.1 to R.7 deleted from the array of respondents) ^COUNSEL FOR 8TH RESPONDENT: Sri B. Adinarayana Rao COUNSEL FOR … Continue reading

whether the respondents are legally obliged to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty on account of the delayed payment of installments after having accepted the allotment of commercial plots by way of auction.- “19. …………In a public auction of sites, the position is completely different. A person interested can inspect the sites offered and choose the site which he wants to acquire and participate in the auction only in regard to such site. Before bidding in the auction, he knows or is in a position to ascertain, the condition and situation of the site. He knows about the existence or lack of amenities. The auction is on `as is where is basis’. With such knowledge, he participates in the auction and offers a particular bid. There is no compulsion that he should offer a particular price. 20. Where there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective purchaser/lessee participates in the auction after having an opportunity of examining the site, the bid in the auction is made keeping in view the existing situation, position and condition of the site. If all amenities are available, he would offer a higher amount. If there are no amenities, or if the site suffers from any disadvantages, he would offer a lesser amount, or may not participate in the auction. Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment, or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffers from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenities are not provided.”

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5887 OF 2012 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 8734 OF 2009 Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority & Ors. … Appellants Versus Raghu Nath Gupta & Ors. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5888 OF 2012 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) … Continue reading

The factual matrix of this case are that in the month of June, 2003, first respondent had issued an advertisement offering equity shares of the Maruthi Udyog Ltd. (which name has since been changed to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) by way of public offer under disinvestment process of this public sector undertaking by Government of India on the basis of bid-cum-offer sale. To compensate the petitioner/complainant in respect of the lesser allotment of 300 shares by paying an amount which shall be equal to the difference in the closing market price of the company shares at the National Stock Exchange on the day of the allotment in question and the fixed allotment price of Rs.125/-. In addition, interest @ 6% shall be paid on this amount of compensation calculated on 300 shares w.e.f. the date of allotment till actual payment to the complainant. (ii) After notionally adjusting the fixed allotment price @ Rs.125 per share for 350 shares i.e. Rs.43,750/-, the complainant would have been entitled for a refund of Rs.71,250/-. Since she received a refund cheque of Rs.5,250/-, the Bank i.e. respondents No.3 & 4 with whom the amount of refund is reported to be lying, shall refund remaining amount of Rs.66,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of allotment till actual payment.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 2702 OF 2006 (From the order dated 8.6.2006 in First Appeal No.1215 & 1216 of 2004 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)   Dr. (Mrs.) B.P. Gayathri R/o Door No.1413, 6th Cross, K.M. Puram, Mysore– 570 004                                    …  Petitioner Versus   1.    Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,609 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com