Skip to content


District Co-operative Bank Limited, Deoria Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Constitution;Insurance

Court

Allahabad High Court

Decided On

Case Number

C.M.W.P. No. 5194 of 1992

Judge

Reported in

2000(1)AWC23

Acts

Constitution of India - Article 226

Appellant

District Co-operative Bank Limited, Deoria

Respondent

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others

Appellant Advocate

P. K. Mukherji, ;Roli Kauser and ;S. K. Singh, Advs.

Respondent Advocate

A. B. Saran, Adv.

Excerpt:


.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase.....d. s. sinha and i. m. quddusi,jj.1. heard ms. roll kauscr holding brief of shrl s. k. slngh. the learned counsel of the petitioner, and shri a. b. saran, the learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents.2. by means of this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner prays that this court may issue a writ of mandamus commanding m/s. oriental insurance company, the respondent, to pay to it a sum of rs. 2,77,643.90. alleged to be due under the insurance policy no, 46/88/00002, dated 2.1.89.3. in substance, petitioner wants this court to enforce the contract of insurance.4. in the opinion of the court, which is fortified by the decision of the hon'ble supreme court rendered in life insurance corporation of india and others v. smt. kiran sinha, air 1985 sc 1265, a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution ofindia is not the appropriate remedy. the remedy of the petitioner lies ets where.5. under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed summarily.

Judgment:


D. S. Sinha and I. M. Quddusi,JJ.

1. Heard Ms. Roll Kauscr holding brief of Shrl S. K. Slngh. the learned counsel of the petitioner, and Shri A. B. Saran, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus commanding M/s. Oriental Insurance Company, the respondent, to pay to it a sum of Rs. 2,77,643.90. alleged to be due under the Insurance Policy No, 46/88/00002, dated 2.1.89.

3. In substance, petitioner wants this Court to enforce the contract of insurance.

4. In the opinion of the Court, which is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Smt. Kiran Sinha, AIR 1985 SC 1265, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia is not the appropriate remedy. The remedy of the petitioner lies ets where.

5. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //