Duli Chand and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Duli Chand and Others vs Union of India and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jan 15, 1992

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/646295

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/646295
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Kuldip Singh; M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 15, 1992
Case Number: I.A. No. 4 of 1991 in Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 1190 of 1989
Subject: Contempt of Court

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (59 OF 1988)Section 149: [Dr.Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Liability of insurer - Death of passenger in commercial vehicle - Award passed against insurer on erroneous premises that premium was paid for goods and passengers - Matter remitted to Tribunal to fix liability after considerin...

Key legal issue: Contempt of Court

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Duli Chand and Others

Respondent

Union of India and Others

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1992SC777; 1992CriLJ858; JT1992(1)SC193; 1992LabIC583; 1992(1)SCALE39; (1992)2SCC28; 1992(1)LC466(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1068

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] liability of insurer - death of passenger in commercial vehicle - award passed against insurer on erroneous premises that premium was paid for goods and passengers - matter remitted to tribunal to fix liability after considering original documents relating to payment of premium. .....view of the same and on account of the statement made on behalf of the union of india on the earlier occasion to the effect that on documents being produced in support of the claim, there would be no objection to grant of pension and in view of the fact that no counter has been filed challenging the specific claims, we direct that these 41 petitioners shall be paid freedom fighters' pension at least from 1.8.80, the date from which petitioner no. 20 has been ordered to receive the same. while granting pension from that date the appropriate authority shall ensure that pension at varying rates from time to time is paid to the respective petitioners within three months from today. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.2. this court, thus, categorically directed that the applicants be paid freedom fighters' pension from august 1, 1980. the respondents have granted pension to the applicants from different dates after august 5, 1986. in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the pension has been given to the applicants from the respective dates when documentary proof in support of their claims was produced by the applicants. no such plea was raised at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. as mentioned in the order reproduced above the union of india did not file any counter in the writ petition. in the face of clear direction by this court that the applicants be paid freedom fighters' pension with effect from august 1, 1980 there is no justification with the respondents to deny the same to the applicants on the ground now raised in the counter filed to the application. the action of the respondents in not granting pension to the applicants with effect from august 1, 1980 amounts to defying the directions of this court. we take serious view of the matter but are not inclined .to take any action at this stage. we direct that the orders of this court dated july 16, 1990 be complied with and the applicants be paid.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kuldip Singh and M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.

1. This application is on behalf of 12 petitioners who have been denied Freedom Fighters' pension with effect from August 1, 1980 as directed by this Court. this Court by order dated July 16, 1990 disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:

Mr. Mahabir Singh states that claim of each of these 41 petitioners is supported by relevant documents which he has produced. This assertion is not denied. In view of the same and on account of the statement made on behalf of the Union of India on the earlier occasion to the effect that on documents being produced in support of the claim, there would be no objection to grant of pension and in view of the fact that no counter has been filed challenging the specific claims, we direct that these 41 petitioners shall be paid Freedom Fighters' pension at least from 1.8.80, the date from which petitioner No. 20 has been ordered to receive the same. While granting pension from that date the appropriate authority shall ensure that pension at varying rates from time to time is paid to the respective petitioners within three months from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

2. this Court, thus, categorically directed that the applicants be paid Freedom Fighters' pension from August 1, 1980. The respondents have granted pension to the applicants from different dates after August 5, 1986. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the pension has been given to the applicants from the respective dates when documentary proof in support of their claims was produced by the applicants. No such plea was raised at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. As mentioned in the order reproduced above the Union of India did not file any counter in the writ petition. In the face of clear direction by this Court that the applicants be paid Freedom Fighters' pension with effect from August 1, 1980 there is no justification with the respondents to deny the same to the applicants on the ground now raised in the counter filed to the application. The action of the respondents in not granting pension to the applicants with effect from August 1, 1980 amounts to defying the directions of this Court. We take serious view of the matter but are not inclined .to take any action at this stage. We direct that the orders of this Court dated July 16, 1990 be complied with and the applicants be paid Freedom Fighters' pension with effect from August 1, 1980. This should be done within two months from today. The application is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1992 Same Parties Duli Chand and Others vs Union of India and Others Same Subject Contempt of Court Same Judge Kuldip Singh; M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.

Contempt of Court