| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1125471 |
| Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Decided On | Feb-04-2014 |
| Appellant | Life Insurance Corporation |
| Respondent | Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. rsa no.552 of 1988 (o&m) date of decision:04. 02.2014 life insurance corporation -----appellant(s) vs. smt. nirmala devi sood -----respondent(s) coram:- hon'ble mr. justice rakesh kumar garg1 whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.2. to be referred to reporters or not?.3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr. i.k. mehta, sr. advocate with ms. ranjit mehta, advocate and mr. b.r. mahajan, advocate for the appellant. none for the respondent. --- rakesh kumar garg, j.the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. To be referred to reporters or not?.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs Smt Nirmala Devi Sood - Citation 1125471 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1125471', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corporation', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-04', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:</p><p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.</p><p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.</p><p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.</p><p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-</p><p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.</p><p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.</p><p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.</p><p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.</p><p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.</p><p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.</p><p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.</p><p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”</p><p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1125471', (int) 1 => 'life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1125471/life-insurance-corporation-vs-nirmala-devi' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.552 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:', (int) 1 => '<p>04. 02.2014 Life Insurance Corporation -----Appellant(s) Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Sood -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. To be referred to reporters or not?.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.', (int) 4 => '<p>The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,340/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery against the defendant-appellant on the basis of the insurance policy. While contesting the suit, the defendant-appellant admitted the issuance of various policies in the name of the deceased K.D. Sood. It was further pleaded that payment of various insurance policies except policy no.22906315 was already made. It was further pleaded that at the time of issuance of Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 2 aforesaid policy, the policy holder had given some false information and had suppressed material facts and thus, the claim of the appellant was rightly repudiated. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-', (int) 5 => '<p>“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.47340/- along with interest as alleged?. OPP.', (int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?. OPP.', (int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act?. OPD.', (int) 8 => '<p>4. Whether the plaintiff is competent to file the present suit?. OPP.', (int) 9 => '<p>5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of cause of action?. OPD.', (int) 10 => '<p>6. Whether the plaint is properly verified?. OPP.', (int) 11 => '<p>7. Whether the deceased withheld material information as alleged?. If so, to what effect?. OPD.', (int) 12 => '<p>8. Relief”.. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to any further interest. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.9.1987 as under:- Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.552 of 1988 3 “In terms of the above, this appeal is partly accepted and a decree is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the assured amount under policy Ex.P1 from the date of death till the date of payment of the assured amount, if the said payment has already been made then the appellant shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of interest she would have received along with the assured amount. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case throughout. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.”', (int) 13 => '<p>. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 14 $i = (int) 13include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant against the aforesaid grant of interest by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Corporation could not dispute the fact that the total effect of payable interest is very meagre and may be even less than the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that interest was not payable, however, keeping in view the meagre amount involved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 04, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.11 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh