advocatemmmohan
Petitioner
Habeas corpus petition – Judicial Custody – Not maintainable – petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and therefore he is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate -no illegal detention as alleged by the petitioner – Instead of applying for bail – came with this Habeas corpus petition – Apex court dismissed the same and directed to petitioner to file bail application before the concerned court = WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 147 OF 2013 SAURABH KUMAR THROUGH HIS FATHER … PETITIONER VERSUS JAILOR, KONEILA JAIL & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41780
Habeas corpus petition – Judicial Custody – Not maintainable – petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and therefore he is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate –no illegal detention as alleged by the petitioner – Instead of applying for bail – came with this Habeas corpus petition … Continue reading
Selling of flats – No privity of contract – no deficiency of service- contract between Res. No. 2 and Complainant – Complainant paid amount to Res. 2 – there is no direct contract between Res.1 and complainant – in absence of privity of contract – in the absence of consideration – Res.1 is not liable to refund the amount as the memorandum of agreement was terminated between Res. 2 and Res.1 and as per the termination , the Res.2 has to refund the amount taken from complainants – Res. No.2 not filed any appeal , Res. 1 directed to recover the same from Res. 2 – all revisions are allowed = M/s. Shree Construction Versus 1. Mr. Suryakanth Parshuram Sawant 2. M/s. Vastu Promoters & Consultants … Respondents/Complainants= published in ncdrcrep/judgement/00131202135111612RP2259-258408.htm
Selling of flats – No privity of contract – no deficiency of service- contract between Res. No. 2 and Complainant – Complainant paid amount to Res. 2 – there is no direct contract between Res.1 and complainant – in absence of privity of contract – in the absence of consideration – Res.1 is not liable to refund the … Continue reading
Use of excess police power on peaceful pro-testators is against law and is an offence The law is now well settled that the State or its functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life which includes right to live with human dignity except in accordance with law. whether petitioners have made out a case that their fundamental right to live with human dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been invaded, atleast prima facie, so as to direct for an independent investigation/enquiry so that the perpetrators may not get away scot free if petitioners’ case is found true. = BEENU RAWAT & ORS … PETITIONERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = published in http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wc446.pdf
Use of excess police power on peaceful pro-testators is against law and is an offence The law is now well settled that the State or its functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life which includes right to live with human dignity except in accordance with law. whether petitioners have made out a case that their … Continue reading
Sec.25,26 and 27 of Consumer Act = Builder failed to provide amenities , Club House etc., and made constructions against the rules of Municipal Nagara Palika – Deficiency in service – consent decree to pay interest on failure to full fill obligations – Executions filed – Appeal lies but not revision – On merits also the builder is at deficiency of service = M/s. Sunny Brooks -vs – Aparajitha Bhandary = published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013111410493830RP386238762010.htm
Sec.25,26 and 27 of Consumer Act = Builder failed to provide amenities , Club House etc., and made constructions against the rules of Municipal Nagara Palika – Deficiency in service – consent decree to pay interest on failure to full fill obligations – Executions filed – Appeal lies but not revision – On merits also the builder is at deficiency of service = The State … Continue reading
Public interest litigation questioning the appointment of Mr. U.K.Sinha as chairman of SEBI -In our opinion,the petition does not satisfy the test of utmost good faith which is required to maintain public interest litigation. Apex court dismissed the writ filed under Art.32 of Indian constitution =Arun Kumar Agrawal …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents – Reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40945
Public interest litigation questioning the appointment of Mr. U.K.Sinha as chairman of SEBI -In our opinion,the petition does not satisfy the test of utmost good faith which is required to maintain public interest litigation. Apex court dismissed the writ filed under Art.32 of Indian constitution = This writ petition has been filed by one … Continue reading
Whether the second wife married during the life time of first wife can file a maintenance case under sec. 125 Cr.P.C. – yes , if she was kept in dark about first marriage = Badshah ….Petitioner Versus Sou.Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. …Respondents – judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40886
Whether the second wife married during the life time of first wife can file a maintenance case under sec. 125 Cr.P.C. – yes , if she was kept in dark about first marriage = the judgments of this Court in Adhav and Savitaben cases would apply only … Continue reading
In this case, as vehicle has been sold by complainant during pendency of appeal which was filed in the year 2007 and decided in the year 2012, complainant ceases to be a consumer under C.P. Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00131015115541960RP262212.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2012 (From the order dated 16.04.2012 in Appeal No. 302/2007 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Suraj Pur – Kasna Road, Greater Noida Indl. Dev. Area Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. – 201 306 …Petitioner/Opp. Party … 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
Fire accident= When there is no clause not to make any constructions to the building with out permission – No claim should be rejected when fire accident was occurred due to short – circute – not concerned with building works = the petitioner issued an insurance policy number 201002/11/03/00372 called ‘Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy’ in favour of the complainant / respondent for a sum of Rs.20.50 lacs for the period 17.3.2004 to 16.03.2005. Out of this amount of Rs.20.50 lacs, Rs.20 lacs was meant for stocks of all kinds of sofa material, curtains cloth, mattresses, pillows, cushions, towels, bed sheets, etc., and Rs.50,000/- was the coverage for furniture, fixtures, fittings and electrical items. During the currency of the policy, fire occurred on 19.09.2004 at about 3:30 a.m. and the respondent estimated the loss to be Rs.20,68,090/-. An intimation was given by the respondent to the local police on the date of the fire and the insurance company was also intimated. The petitioner insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. Vide his report dated 29.01.2005, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.10,80,770/-. The surveyor also pointed out that at the time of loss, there was construction going on in the shop on the first and second floors of the building. In order to supply electric current to first and second floor, electric wires had been put on the main electric meter for the shop, which resulted in probable short-circuiting, leading to fire. The petitioner repudiated the claim, saying that there was violation of conditions of the policy, because construction was going on in the premises. = construction activity was being carried out at the premises in question and as per the surveyor’s report, the probable cause of fire could be due to short-circuiting, but we agree with the findings of the District Forum and State Commission that in this case also, the insurance company cannot escape responsibility to pay the claim under the Policy. We do not agree with the contention of the petitioner that the construction activity had resulted in increased risk for the insured stocks in question. It has also been made clear that there are separate electric connections for the ground floor and first floor and there are separate electricity meters for the same. It is not clear anywhere that the insured was required to obtain permission of the insurance company before starting the construction. The District Forum in their order have rightly assessed the value of the total stocks, in question and the value of the stocks lying safe in the godown, and allowed the claim after taking into consideration both these values. We, therefore, find no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission which reflect true appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record. These orders are, therefore, upheld and the present revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130807112019251RP23812012.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2012 (From the order dated 30.03.2012 in First Appeal No. 970/2008 of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. & Head Office 24, Whites Road Chennai – 600014 Through its Regional office No. 1 Kanchenjunga Building … Continue reading
Vehicle theft – premium paid through cheque for renewal of policy was bounced due to bank fault – Refusal of granting insurance claim – not tenable = In the meanwhile, the vehicle, in question, was stolen on the mid-night of 09.07.2004. The complainant lodged an FIR with the Police and also informed OP No. 2 Insurance Company regarding the theft and requested for payment of insurance claim. However, the said claim was rejected by OP No. 2 and they informed the complainant that his cheque bearing number 282302 dated 16.06.2004 for Rs.9,623/- had been dishonoured by OP No.1 and hence the insurance policy could not be renewed. The complainant then contacted OP No. 1 bank, where it was found that there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant. The bank authorities vide their letter dated 13.07.2004 sent to the OP No. 2 insurance company stated that their counter clerk / officer had inadvertently returned the cheque issued by the complainant by oversight on 18.06.2004 and there was sufficient balance in savings account no. 6148 of the complainant. They also issued a banker’s cheque dated 13.07.2004 for Rs.9623/- in favour of OP No. 2 but the OP No. 2 rejected the said request and also rejected the claim filed by the complainant as the vehicle had already been stolen by that time. It is further borne out from record that after receiving the cheque of Rs.9,623/-, the Insurance Company did issue policy in favour of the complainant which was valid for a period of one year till 15.06.2005 but the said policy was cancelled by the Company after the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. In the said insurance policy the total Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle has been shown to be Rs.2,62,000/-. The complainant in his complaint and further in written submissions has stated that since the vehicle was purchased for a sum of Rs.3,45,959.40 and it was only 16 months old, when it was stolen. The complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.4 lakh as compensation for the value of the vehicle. However, from the IDV mentioned in the Policy issued by the insurance company, it can be safely presumed that the complainant is not entitled to get more than Rs.2,62,000/- for loss of the vehicle. However, looking at the negligence shown by the complainant in not pursuing this case after submitting cheque for the premium amount he needs to be penalised also to some extent. It is felt, therefore, that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as already allowed by the State Commission seems to be a reasonable amount for awarding compensation to the complainant for loss of the vehicle.
published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130808105104311RP462109204810.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4621 OF 2009 (From the order dated 29.10.2009 in First Appeal No. 106/2007 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) B. Shankar s/o B. Bhadru c/o B. Parasuram IInd Floor, H. No. 1-9-285/3A, Lalitha Nagar Ramnagar Gundu Hyderabad – 500 044. … Petitioner Versus 1. Union Bank of India Chikkadapally Branch, 1-8-563/2 … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 