.....lakh each on account of loss of love & affection and loss of consortium and rs. 25,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are added. thus, the total compensation awardable in the case comes to (7,95,600- + 1,00,000 + 1,00,000+ 25,000 + 25,000) rs.10,45,600/-, rounded off to rs. 10,46,000/-. the compensation is, thus, reduced to rs. 10,46,000/-.6. following the consistent view taken by this court, the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in mac.app. 165/2011 oriental insurance co ltd v. sangeeta devi & ors.]. mac appeal no.116/2012 page 3 of 4 7. the awarded amount shall be apportioned in the ratio directed by the tribunal. the directions for protection of the corpus as given by the tribunal shall hold good.8. in terms of the order dated 31.01.2012, the insurance company was directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with the registrar general of this court and upon such deposit being made to put it in a fixed deposit receipt in uco bank, delhi high court branch, initially for a period of six months with provision for auto renewal from time.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....upon the judgment of this court in d.s. constructions ltd. vs. rites ltd., air2006del 98 wherein it has been held as under:-"“33. now, in the factual background of the present case, i find that the offer of the plaintiff lapsed on 23-9-2003 and there was no underlying contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. when the plaintiff's offer lapsed on 23-9-2003 it became entitled to the return of the earnest money amount and the defendant no.1 could not, in law, forfeit the same. knowing that it is not entitled to forfeit the amount, if the defendant no.1 still goes ahead and invokes the bank guarantee it would be doing so despite the knowledge that it has no right to forfeit the amount. such an invocation would be clearly fraudulent. since the defendant no.1 is the beneficiary, such fraudulent action on its part would be liable to be injuncted in view of the well settled legal principles.” 8. mr. sibal contends that the documents furnished by the plaintiff pertaining to construction work of planning, designing and construction of storage dam at ozarkheda under varangaon talvel parisar sichan yojana with all appurtenant works tq. bhuswal, district jalgaon are.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....form on 18th may, 2014. thus, this is not a case of concealment.3. the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition (c) no.748/2016 challenging the order of discharge. he had also relied upon judgment of acquittal dated 1st december, 2015 passed by the chief judicial magistrate w.p. (c) no.3906/2016 page 1 of 3 in cis no.39586/2013 titled state versus mahender and others. this writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24th february, 2016 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation in the light of the said judgment and affidavit dated 8th february, 2016. the respondents were asked to pass a speaking order in accordance with law under intimation to the petitioner. certain other directions were also issued.4. the respondents vide order dated 11th april, 2016 have rejected the representation made by the petitioner recording that the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 1st december, 2015 whereas the discharge order was passed earlier on 17th september, 2015. it has been observed that the petitioner was under trial on the date of issue of discharge order.5. we do not think that the impugned order dated 11th april, 2016 can be.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT$~a- * % + in the high court of delhi at new delhi date of decision: july 05, 2017 cm(m)210/2016 ram lubhaya kapoor …petitioner through mr.j.c.mahindroo, adv. versus through mr.ravi shankar garg, adv. …respondent seema aggarwal coram: hon'ble mr. justice jayant nath jayant nath, j.(oral) the facts and issues of the present case are identical to those of cm(m) 208/2016. in view of the reasons noted in the order dated 05.07.2017 in the above said petition, the present petition also stands dismissed. all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (jayant nath) judge july05 2017
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that no court shall make an order to extend the time provided under rule 1 of this order for filing of the written statement.” in view of the fact that the defendants 1 to 6 have failed to appear and file their written statement, they are liable to be proceeded with under order viii rule 10 of cpc.11. the plaint is verified and supported by affidavits and statement of truth of the plaintiffs affirming the contents of the plaint. the plaintiffs have also filed an affidavit under order xi rule 6(3) of cpc with regard to electronic record.12. in a suit for infringement of the same trademarks filed by the plaintiffs being cs (comm) 67/2015 titled monish gujral & others versus best food & another, another coordinate bench of this court by judgment dated 09.08.2016 has decreed the suit.13. in view of the above, i am of the opinion that, this is a fit case, where instead of requiring the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence, judgment can be pronounced forthwith against defendants 1 to 6.14. the plaintiffs have pleaded that they are the registered proprietors of the well-known trademark ‘moti mahal’ and moti cs(comm)137/2017 page 4 of 19 mahal formative marks in india and in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to be made absolute.13. the petition is, accordingly allowed. the respondents are hereby restrained from transferring, selling, encumbering or, in any manner, alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of property bearing no.1202, tower no.23, 12th floor, lodha belmondo, gahunje, pune, maharastra-412101 and saptasatij metatech pvt. ltd. survey no.879, siddivinayak industrial estate, near maharashtra weight bridge, kudalwadi, chikhali, pune, maharashtra-412114.14. the petitioner shall take appropriate steps to ensure compliance of the provisions of section 9(2) of the act 15. the petition is disposed of in the above terms.16. order dasti under the signatures of the court master. sanjeev sachdeva, j july05 2017 st o.m.p.(i) (comm.) 99/2017 page 4 of 4
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to strike against it sometime after midnight. neither the insurer nor the tractor owner or driver made any attempt to bring any evidence to prove facts to the contrary. the said finding, therefore, does not call for any interference. compensation in case of death of rahul yadav10 deceased rahul yadav was 25 years old and had completed secondary school examination. as per the evidence of his wife (pw- 1), he had been in a private service as cctv operator earning rs.9,000/- per month. she sought to prove this fact on the basis of salary certificate ex.pw-1/8. this, however, could not have been accepted and was rightly rejected as no formal proof about such engagement was brought in. the evidence was also led by the testimony of pw-4 to the effect that rahul yadav was son of a former employee of delhi police who had died during service, rahul yadav’s candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds having been accepted and he being offered appointment but, subject to medical fitness. before he could undergo medical examination or take up such appointment, unfortunately, he died in the accident. in these circumstances, the tribunal did not accept the plea of the claimants.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the petitioner.3. on 7.11.2009 the arc noted that the relationship of landlord tenant, rate of rent and the period of arrears are admitted facts. hence, it directed the petitioner under section 15(1) of the drc act to pay the rent dues @ rs.250/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2006 till date by depositing the calculated amount directly in the bank account of the respondent, particulars of which were to be furnished by the respondent. it was also directed that monthly rent of rs.250/- per month shall be paid by the 15th of each succeeding month by depositing the same in the bank.4. on 20.10.2012 the arc recorded the examination in chief of the petitioner, shri satish bansal, where he has admitted the relationship of landlord tenant between the parties, the rate of rent of rs.250 per month and that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2006. holding that there is nothing on record to show that there is any default earlier on the part of the petitioner, the arc granted benefit to the petitioner under section 14(2) of the act. it held that in case the petitioner has complied with the order under section 15(1) of the drc act passed on 7.11.2009, there shall be no eviction of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and on the contrary, continuous letters / e-mails were exchanged, eliciting information. it is stated that eil by an e-mail dated 12.04.2017, in fact sought clarification that led it to furnish the bankers letter dated 19.04.2017. it is also stated that the eil had sought clarifications with respect to the auditor’s statements which were furnished in january, 2017. ms.madan, learned counsel argues that if the petitioners’ bid was considered non-responsive and rejected, then all this exchange of correspondence would not have occurred. furthermore, that the petitioner was asked to extend its emb also is proof of the fact that the bid was never deemed non- compliant to the terms and conditions in the advertisement.6. it is argued that the rationale given for bid rejection – primarily premised on two grounds i.e. financial unsoundness of the lead member and its inability to provide documentary evidence with respect to adequacy of working capital from a bank, and that it did not fulfill the financial eligibility parameters contained in the tender, are both untenable. it is argued that the chart produced in the petition w.p.(c) 5266/2017 page 9 of 16 equally establishes that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to the amendment by the arbitration & conciliation (amendment) act, 2015, is applicable to the present proceedings.2. learned counsel for the parties further inform that section 34 application under the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 impugning the award/decree dated 12.07.2014 passed by the sole arbitrator is pending. ex. p.369 /2015 page 1 of 2 3. in view of the un-amended section 34, a challenge under section 34 of the act amounts to a stay of the enforcement of the award.4. in view of the above, learned counsel for the decree holder seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition in case the section 34 application impugning the award dated 12.07.2014 is decided in favour of the decree holder.5. the execution petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the decree holder, as prayed for. sanjeev sachdeva, j july05 2017 ‘sn’ ex. p.369 /2015 page 2 of 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT