Delhi Court February 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
icici Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anil Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2010
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. This is an appeal against an ex parte order. The District Forum (Central) in complaint case of the complainant awarded an amount of Rs. 1,91,437 towards reimbursement of medical expenses with interest @ 9% payable from 28.11.2000 and a compensation of Rs. 5,000 litigation costs Rs. 3,000 in favour of the complainant and against the OP. 2. That is what brings the appellant OP Insurance Company here in appeal in this Commission. 3. Allegations of the complainant in the complaint are that he is the life insurance policy holder containing nine Critical Illness Benefits effective from 24.7.2003 to 24.7.2019 for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. He suffered from heart attack on 11.11.2007 and was hospitalized wherefrom he was discharged on 16.11.2007 and he paid to St. Stephen Hospital, New Delhi Rs. 1,91,437 for his treatment which he claimed to be reimbursed from the op Insurance Company on basis of his policy, but the OP company on 28.11.2007 repudiated his claim...
Col K.S.Chaudhary (Retd.) Versus Union of India Through Secretary Mini ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2010
1. Both the petitions are clubbed together as the common question of law and fact are involved and are in between the same parties. Petition no.TA/167/09 (Civil Writ Petition no.4957/95) shall be leading case. In both the petitions, the prayer has been made for setting aside the directions given vide the order no.112/IV/KSC/RSC/PC/HQ dated 16.12.1999 and subsequent order no.112/4/KSC/RSC/HQ dated 16.12.1995 and order no.112/4/KSC/HQ(II) dated 16.12.1995 (Annexure A) asking the petitioners to be present in the recording of the preliminary investigation or in Summary of Evidence. It is said that the Court of Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner after his retirement but he was not afforded any opportunity to attend the said Court of Inquiry which took place in the month of September 1993. Though the petitioner continued to make the request for permitting him to attend the Court of Inquiry and also to change the place of such inquiry as he was apprehending some threat to his life a...
Lt. Col. Chandra Bhanu K.C Versus Union of India Through Secretary, Mi ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2010
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in W.P (C) No.9124 of 2008, a miscellaneous application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the respondents attributing knowledge regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. From that date onwards, the period of limitation is to be computed. Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the High Court had already disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the first Court of Inquiry and directing respondents to initiate fresh Court of Inquiry, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. On the basis of the conclusion arrived at in the second Court of Inquiry, the knowledge about the involvement of the petitioner could only be inferred for the purpose of ascertainment of limitation under Section 122 of the Army Act. It is submitted that whatever had been mentioned in the miscellaneous application earlier moved before the High Court was based on the first Cou...
Ex-sep Hari Chand Versus Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2010
1. The petitioner challenges his dismissal from service by Summary Court Martial held on 8.3.1997 and seeks to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was posted to a difficult area in Jammu and Kashmir, when this incident occurred. On 31st August 1996, he was awarded an illegal punishment of going on patrol by his Company Commander who sent him from his post at Tanchi to a difficult post called Bhim. Such punishment is supposedly not authorised under any Act or Rules. Not only this, the next day, i.e. on 1st September 1996, the petitioner was again ordered to go to the same post i.e. Bhim. This caused undue harassment to him, which was compounded by the fact that on 1st September 1996, he was literally alone. since the only other soldier accompanying him was a Tradesman (Safaiwala), who had no weapon. This also is indicative of the bias and prejudice of his unit against him. Notwithstanding such prejudice, the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›