advocatemmmohan
New Delhi
No medical negligence = False claim alleging that operation was done over the dead body by playing mellow drama patient was joined with heart ailment for two days for claiming operation charges -No medical negligence Dismissed = Surinder Singh -verses -1. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre and others = published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00131111150515946OP46402.htm
No medical negligence = False claim alleging that operation was done over the dead body by playing mellow drama patient was joined with heart ailment, for two days for claiming operation charges -No medical negligence Dismissed = Opposite parties have proved on record the nurses charts / notes maintained by Duty nurses who attended to the patient Virendr Kaur after the surgery till … Continue reading
Insurance against floods – house and household articles – surveyor assessed the loss to be Rs.30,050/- – compensation was fixed= Sri Anil Chandra Dey Versus 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd .- http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00131023102711345RP20192008.htm
Insurance against floods – house and household articles – surveyor assessed the loss to be Rs.30,050/- – compensation was fixed even though there are no records for repairs except on oral evidence of contractor and photographs = the complainant/petitioner Amit Chandra Dey got his residential house insured with the OP, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no. 530600/48/01/0045 for the period … Continue reading
unsolicited calls from banks/financial institution, like ICICI, UTI, HSBC, HDFC etc. for tele-marketing their products and services.- complaint =
unsolicited calls from banks/financial institution, like ICICI, UTI, HSBC, HDFC etc. for tele-marketing their products and services.- complaint = A complaint filed for unsolicited calls claiming heavy damages before the state commission – State commission converted the complaint as a representative suit – Cellular Operators Association was also impleaded after that – interim orders given … Continue reading
Death due to accidental fall from upstairs – No proof – claim repudiated= Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Manager Naidupetta Branch Nellore District Petitioner Through Assistant Secretary Northern Zonal Office Jeevan Bharti, Cannaught Circus New Delhi Versus N Shanker Reddy Son of Late Sarasamma Resident of Malakalapudi Village Respondent Chittamuru Mandal District Nellore, Andhra Pradesh- published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00131011133657827RP38692008html1.htm
Death due to accidental fall from upstairs – No proof claim repudiated = Death due to accidental fall from upstairs – no medical report, no police report and to say negative the report submitted does not belong to deceased as evidenced by reply of M.R.O. – No supporting affidavit who witnessed the incident filed – District consumer … Continue reading
Application for registration of trade mark “SHARP” was refused after hearing objection , the application was rejected Hence the appeal – Ans. :- Dismissed = 1. Sunil Grover, Trading as Analog Systems, A-10, Ranjit Nagar, Community Centre, Behind Satyam Cinema, New Delhi 100 008. … Application (Represented by Advocate: Shri Mr. M.K. Miglani) 1. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation), 22-22 Nagaike-Cho-Abeno-Ku, 545 Osaka, Japan (Add. For service in India Mohan Associates, Ceebros Building,D-4, III Floor, Cenetaph Road, Teynampet-18) 2. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trade Marks Registry, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110 020. … Respondents (Represented by Advocate: Shri Arun C. Mohan) published in http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/206-2013.htm
Application for registration of trade mark “SHARP” was refused after hearing objection , the application was rejected Hence the appeal – The appellant are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing TV Booster, antenna for TV, two in one and converters for the last many years. In 1974, they honestly and bonafidely adopted a … Continue reading
conciliation/mediation = Undoubtedly, both the parties were minor at the time when the respondent claims that they were married. She further alleges that she gave birth to a daughter when the parties lived together as husband and wife. Respondent filed a suit with a prayer that the appellant be restrained from marrying anyone else during her life time. She also filed another suit claiming that she and her daughter are entitled to 1/3rd share of the property owned by the appellant and his father. She, therefore, prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and his father from alienating the suit property.- Paramount duty of the Court in matrimonial matters should be to restore peace in the family. The attitude should not be to further encourage the parties to litigate. Only as a last resort the Court ought to decide the suit/proceeding on merits. Therefore, we are unable to approve the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed; the observations made in Para 4 of the impugned judgment are deleted.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40831 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8572 OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26148 of 2011] BHEEMRAYA …APPELLANT VERSUS SUNEETHA …RESPONDENT ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Undoubtedly, both the parties were minor … Continue reading
Damage to the crop due pesticides – not proved; Claim by other persons whoes names not mentioned in the purchased Bill = (2012) 2 SCC 506 – National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. in which it was held that not only the purchaser of goods, but also beneficiaries who use the goods with approval of the person who purchased goods fall within purview of consumer. We agree with the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, but in the case in hand, complainants have submitted in paragraph 1 of the complaint that they have purchased pesticides for a sum of Rs.9,000/- whereas bill dated 12.12.2006 is in the name of only Complainant no. 2. Further, perusal of complaint reveals that nowhere complainants have alleged that Complainant No. 1 and Complainant nos. 3 to 9 used aforesaid pesticides with approval of complainant no.2. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Complainant No. 1 and Complainant Nos. 3 to 9 sprayed purchased pesticides on their crop with the approval of Complainant No. 2 who purchased pesticides from OP No. 2 and 3, and in such circumstances, Complainant No. 1 and Complainant 3 to 9 do not fall within purview of consumer and learned State Commission has not committed any error in holding that except Complainant No. 2, rest of the complainants do not fall within purview of consumer.- Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide. Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to the wheat crop. These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to the wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not. They have mentioned damage as told by the complainants meaning thereby without carrying out any test regarding application of pesticides on the wheat crop. They have given report regarding damage to the crop due to application of purchased pesticides. 8. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013092511533404RP444612.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4446 OF 2012 (From the order dated 13.07.2012 in Appeal No. 859/2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) 1. Devender Kumar S/o Sh. Khicchu 2. Radha Charan S/o Sh. Puran Lal 3. Mahendar S/o Sh. Heti 4. Devraj S/o Sh. Puran Lal 5. Parkash S/o Sh. Khema 6. Chander S/o Sh. Khajan Singh 7. Nand Kishore S/o Sh. Shiv Charan 8. Shyam S/o Sh. Uttam Singh 9. Rajender S/o Sh. Bhagmal All R/o of Village Mohna, … Continue reading
Accident claim = when the drivers licence was not valid and was not renewed at the time of accident, petitioner is not entitled to 75% of the claim on non-standard basis and respondent has not committed any error in repudiating claim.
published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013092511482503RP75-7613.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 75-76 OF 2013 (From the order dated 08.11.2012 in Appeal No. FA/12/95 & FA/12/98 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur) Alok Waghe S/o Shri S.D. Waghe R/o LIG, Tatibandh, Raipur, Ditrict Raipur (C.G.) …Petitioner/Complainant Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through: Branch Manager, Shimangal Bhawan, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) …Respondent/Opp. Party … Continue reading
Execution Petition = The High Court, by an interim order dated 11th May, 1970 gave an opportunity to the appellant/judgment debtor to pay the entire decretal amount within two months from the date of passing of the interim order, failing which it was directed that the said order would stand automatically vacated. 10. The entire decretal amount was admittedly not paid by the judgment debtor and therefore, finally by an order dated 2nd February, 2006, the Execution Second Appeal No. 742 of 1970 has been dismissed by the High Court and being aggrieved by the said order, the judgment debtor has filed this appeal.= It is really deplorable that the heirs of the plaintiff who had filed the original suit somewhere in 1955 are still unable to get the decretal amount. In our opinion, sufficient opportunities had been provided to the judgment debtor to pay the decretal amount but every time the appellant failed to pay the decretal amount within the period prescribed, this matter should have an end at this stage and therefore, we dismiss the appeal and the stay granted by this Court also stands vacated.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40819 NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8398 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6094 of 2007) Manju Swarup (D) through Lrs. …..Appellants Versus Bhupenshwar Prasad (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. …..Respondents … Continue reading
Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’).=The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi had levied penalty in exercise of his powers under Section 78(5) of the Act against the owner of the vehicle who was carrying certain goods of the assessee.- “If one reads sub-section (5) of Section 78 in its entirety with Rule 53 of the 1995 Rules, it is clear that penalty was liable to be imposed for importation of any taxable goods for sale without furnishing a declaration in Form ST 18A completely filled in all respects. The duty to fill and furnish the said Form is imposed on the purchasing dealer. Therefore, Section 78(5) as it stood prior to 22.3.02 imposed penalty if possession or movement of goods took place inter alia in breach of Section 78(2)(a) on “the person in-charge”, which included the owner. In this connection it may be noted that sub- section (5) comes after sub-section 4(c) which talks about release of the goods to “the owner of the goods” on his giving of adequate security. It is the owner (importer) who has to fill in the Form ST 18A. It is the owner who is entitled to seek release under Section 78(4) on giving security. It is the owner who is entitled to hearing under Section 78(5) and, therefore, the expression “person in-charge of the goods” under Section 78(5) would include the owner. Moreover, under Section 78(2) the words used are “person in-charge of a vehicle or carrier of goods in movement” whereas the words in Section 78(5) which comes after sub-section (4) refers to “person in-charge of the goods”. The words “in movement” do not find place in Section 78(5) and therefore the expression “person in charge of goods” under Section 78(5) was wider than the expression “person in charge of goods in movement” under Section 78(2)(a). Consequently, the expression “person in-charge of the goods” under Section 78(5) who is given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry would include the “owner of the goods”.= “person in-charge of the goods” under the old Section 78(5) is substituted by the words “the owner of the goods or a person authorized in writing by such owner or person in-charge of the goods”.- Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. M/S PAREKH ENTERPRISES .
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40817 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8216 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.4194 OF 2010) ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S PAREKH ENTERPRISES RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. This … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 