//
archives

mr gautam

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Unfortunately, on 25th July 2003, around 4.0 A.M., there was a strong storm and heavy rain-fall due to which the roof of Rice Mill collapsed and the water entered into the Rice Mill due to which the raw material, furnished stock, machinery, tin shed and other articles got damagedwhether the complainant/petitioner after accepting the amount in the sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- as full and final settlement is entitled to have the residue amount claimed in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the initial stage? It is note-worthy that the petitioner has not set up the plea of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion in his pleadings. In the case of “United India Insurance versus Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. [II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) the apex court was pleased to hold: -, “4. ………………… The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise or undue influence or by mis-representation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estopple insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the Insurance Companies notwithstanding the insurance of the discharge voucher. Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the Insurance Companies over and above the liabilities payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. 5. In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-representation or the lie. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commision was justified in dismissing their complaints…………………………” 10. This view was also followed in a case reported in the case of “Raj Kumar versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [III (2011) CPJ 354 (NC)]” 11. It is also difficult to fathom as to why the first letter was written 10-11 months, thereafter, this objection was never taken at the earliest possible opportunity. 12. The learned State Commission rightly held that the original complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by time. The same was filed on 20th January 2007 i.e. two years 11 months and 10 days after cheque of Rs. 3,27,230/- had been issued and accepted by the complainant. The petition is without merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 3689 OF 2009  (From the order dated 24.07.2009 in Appeal No. 2065/2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh) M/s Shiv Ram Gramodyog Sansthan                          …  Petitioner Through its Secretary Shivanant Agrahari Basaipur Distric Chandauli U.P.   Versus   1.  United India Insurance Co. Ltd.                             …  Respondents Thorugh … Continue reading

BAIL TO SURESH KALMADI =The Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi has been in custody for over eight months and Petitioner V.K. Verma for ten months. There is no allegation BAIL APPLNs. 1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 18 of 18 that the Petitioners are likely to flee from justice and will not be available for the trial. The allegations against the Petitioners are of having committed economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State Exchequer by adopting the policy of single vendor and ensuring that the contract is awarded only to STL. Whether it was a case of exercise of discretion for ensuring the best quality or a case of culpability will be decided during the course of trial. There is no allegation of money trial to the Petitioners. There is no evidence of the Petitioners threatening the witnesses or interfering with evidence during investigation or trial. There is no allegation that any other FIR has been registered against the Petitioners. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to bail to the Petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The Petitioners will not leave the Country without the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

BAILAPPLNs. 1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 1 of 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 10th January, 2012 Decided on: 19th January, 2012 + BAIL APPLN. 1692 OF 2011 SURESH KALMADI ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr. Sushil Kumar, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Hitesh Jain, … Continue reading

infringement of registered trade mark WALKER/MORNING WALKER We have already pointed out that from the documents marked as Annexures B, C, D and E annexed to the injunction application, the plaintiff/appellant has made out a strong prima facie case of violation of infringement of their trademark and, thus, it is a fit case for grant of adinterim injunction. We, consequently, set aside that part of the order impugned by which His Lordship refused to grant any ad-interim order and pass an order of ad-interim injunction in terms of prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this application till the disposal of the application for injunction, which is pending before the learned single Judge.

APOT No. 273 of 2011 G.A.1883 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side SPACEAGE MULTIPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Appellant Versus TVSN MARKETING & ORS. Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Gautam Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate with Mr. S.Basu, Mr. P.Sinha and Mr. Atish Ghosh, Advocates For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Abid Hussain with … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,077 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com