.....far off places simply to harass them. in order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of section 202 to make it obligatory upon the magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." the amendment has come into force w.e.f. 23.6.2006 vide notification no.s.o.923(e) dated 21.6.2006." 8. as there was non compliance with section 202(1) of cr.p.c., the hon'ble the supreme court directed in the matter of "national bank of oman" (supra) that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the magistrate for fresh orders after following the provisions of section 202 of the cr.p.c. 9. keeping in view the provisions and observations of the hon'ble supreme court, the present criminal application is allowed in following terms : the impugned order of issue of process, dated 11.10.2012 in regular criminal case no.239/2012 by chief judicial magistrate, jalgaon is quashed.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....already produced by the parties and the internal noting or correspondence between officers of the plaintiff company are not relevant. 15) one more fact to be noticed is that the suit is pending since 2006. written statement was filed by the appellant defendant in october 2007. the plaintiff had filed the affidavit of documents on 7 december 2007. the amendment to the written statement had prima facie nothing to do with the merits of the controversy of the suit as filed initially. the defendant knew in december 2007 which documents the plaintiff had not produced, of which discovery is now sought, as they pertained to the period july 2004 to november 2005. therefore, the learned trial judge is correct in taking a view that there was gross delay in filing an application for discovery. reliance placed by the appellant-defendant upon the decision of the apex court in m. l. sethi vs. r. p. kapur 1972(2) scc 427 is not apposite as it did not deal with an application under order 11 rule 14 of the cpc. besides, the consequence of not complying with the order 11 rule 12 of the cpc already passed in this case is provided for in order 11 rule 21 of the cpc thus the trial judge was right in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....this commission, by a bench, consisting of justice j.m. malik and dr. s.m. kantikar inconsumer case nos. 307 to 309 of 2012, titled m/s. moran plantation pvt. ltd. and ors. vs. m/s. ambience private ltd., decided on02.09.2013, took the similar view, wherein it was held:- œin the facts of the present case, we maintain the same view, and while dismissing the complaints, as not maintainable, reserve the rights of the complainants to approach the appropriate civil court to seek their remedy, if so advised?. 10. consequently, we are of the considered view that the complainants are not consumers. hence, this complaint is not maintainable, and is, therefore, dismissed. the complainants are, however, given liberty to approach the appropriate forum to seek redressal of their grievances, if so advised. they may take advantage of the ruling of the honble supreme court in the case of laxmiengineering works vs. psg industrial institute, (1995) 3 scc 583, to seek exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this complaint, before this commission.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....formed on 23/09/1986, four months were completed on 23/01/1987. it was submitted that in the year 1987, there was no provision for limitation in the act. section 24(a) is incorporated in the act w.e.f.18/06/1993. it was necessary to look into general provisions of the limitation act which provides three years limitation from the date of cause of action. learned advocate tried to argue that the cause of action arose on the expiry of four months from formation of the society. it means that cause of action arose on 23/01/1987 and since that date, limitation is of three years. it means limitation expired on 23/01/1990. complaint was filed in the year 2005 and hence it is barred by limitation. [8] learned advocate of the complainant submitted that there is a continuous cause of action and hence complaint is not barred by limitation. learned advocate of the opposite party has submitted that when law provides a specific date for doing any act, then on that date cause of action arose and limitation starts running from that date. here in the present matter, four months time is provided for executing conveyance from date of formation of the society and hence after formation of the society.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....was suffering from a pre-existing disease which was not disclosed by him at the time of obtaining the policy. he suppressed the material fact relating to his health. the health insurance claim was therefore rightly rejected by the insurance company and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/op. 5. both the parties led evidence and upon consideration of facts, circumstances and evidence on record the ld. dcdrf decreed the complaint and directed the op/appellant to pay a sum of rs.1,95,000/- towards mediclaim policy. the op was further directed to pay a compensation of rs.90,000/- for mental agony and harassment and rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. 6. the op insurance company felt aggrieved with the order dated 10.4.08 passed by dcdrf, k.g.marg, new delhi and preferred this appeal inter-alia on the following main grounds besides the others : i) that the ld. dcdrf passed impugned order dated 10.4.08 on completely unsustainable ground without applying its judicial mind and leaving apart the exclusion clause relating to pre-existing disease provided under the terms and conditions of the health insurance policy. ii) that ironically the ld......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....o.p. filed the appeal as above. (he being now called as appellant and the original complainant being called as respondent for brevity). 3. the facts involved in the case are that the respondent (through his father) complained that he had deposited rs.50,000/- with the appellant on the condition of payment of interest at the rate of rs. 1.25 per month on 01/04/2003 based on the receipt issued on 01/04/2003. the appellant also paid interest for few days. but in the month of august-2004 when the respondent requested to refund his deposits, the appellant refused to refund it. the respondent therefore, on 26/08/2004 sent a legal notice but as the appellant did not pay back the amount, he filed a complaint before the forum on 05/01/2006. 4. the appellant appeared before the forum and through written statement stated that in the complaint the respondent had stated that, the amount was paid through one purushottam sharma where as on the receipt, it is written that the amount is received through one vinod kumar. the appellant denied that the amount was given to him as a deposit and also denied to have given the assurance of paying interest upon the deposits. he claimed that the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....respondent herein directed the appellant to provide car parking to the flat of the respondent herein together with costs of rs.1,000/-. the brief facts of the complaint are that the respondent/complainant purchased flat no.12 in 3rd floor of sai sowdha apartment with built up area of 1100 sft. along with undivided share of land to an extent of 38.57 sq. yds. out of 540 sq. yds. in sy.nos.90 and 92 in satrampadu gram panchayat, eluru for a valuable consideration of rs.10,00,000/- and the said flat was registered under a sale deed dated 17-6-2009 and the possession of the flat was also delivered on the same day. as no car parking was provided and there are some deficiencies in construction, the respondent/complainant got issued a legal notice to the appellant herein on 03-10-2011 but the same was refused by the appellant. in those circumstances, the respondent herein approached the district forum and filed the complaint claiming car parking, to rectify the leakage of water, damages of rs 2 lakhs and costs. the appellant did not choose to contest the matter before the district forum. after following due procedure under law, the district forum relying on exs.a1 to a3 allowed the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....conditions clearly prescribe that when a policy gets lapsed and the same is to be revived, the insured shall produce a certificate establishing the fact that he is maintaining good health. in the case on hand, according to her, the deceased has not produced any certificate with regard to his health, and three months after revival of the policy, he died of cardiac arrest due to respiratory problems. in those circumstances, the respondent/complainant is not entitled for any relief. 7) heard. 8) we are unable to appreciate the said submissions. evidently there are two policies bearing nos. ap-261055-us and ap-221540-us, and the life of the deceased was assured under the said policies. it is also true that both the policies got lapsed and they were revived by the deceased during his life time by paying necessary premium for a period of 14 months i.e., from 2/2008 to 3/2009. it is also true that the deceased has not produced any certificate to establish that he was maintaining good health. when such is the case, it is not known, as to how, the appellant has come forward in settling the claim in so far as the policy no. ap-261055-us only. it is pertinent to note herein that when the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....both side counsel in this appeal. 8. now the point for consideration is whether the order of the district forum is vitiated either in law or on facts? 9. the undisputed facts are that thecomplainant applied to the opposite parties for booking a unit and paid registration charges of rs.9,62,672/- to them. the opposite parties issued allotment letter dated 18.07.2008 allotting unit no.49, tower c with an approximate built up area of 2723.13 sft. for a total sale consideration of rs.1,92,53,441/-. the complainant due to personal inconvenience stopped payment of subsequent instalments and sought for cancellation of the booking and requested to refund the amount paid by him. the opposite parties contended that as per clause 2 of the terms and conditions the complainant undertook to pay the registration fee amounting to 5% of the sale price immediately and 10% of the total sale price within 15 days from the date of booking and the remaining 5% of the total sale price within 30 days from the date of booking. the complainant had paid only the first 5% of the total sale price and failed to pay subsequent instalments despite sending several reminders to the complainant. as per clause.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....if the instrument does not give proper services and is not attended to when called upon to do so. however, he stated that instruments is giving satisfactory service since the year 2008 and presently it is working properly. this forum does not deem it fit to keep the said matter hanging and adjourned sine die. in the eventuality of the haematology analyser ceasing to function properly or being in need of servicing to be done by the service provider i.e. the opposite party and in the event the opposite party fails to comply with its contractual obligations, then in that event the complainant is free to approach the forum with fresh complaint of deficiency of service which will he heard and adjudicated upon provided it comes within the purview of law and as per the provisions laid out in the consumer protection act, 1986 by which this forum is bound. the complainant has not placed on record any service contract entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties.? 3. this complaint was filed by the complainant inter alia, for refund of rs. 3.5 lacs with depreciation of 5% every year. 4. however, the complainant does not seem to have any grievance against the said order.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT