Delhi Court May 2012 Judgments
Shashi Bhushan and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J.1 1. The Appellants impugn a judgment dated 17.05.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a compensation of `2,52,000/- in favour of the Respondents No.2 and 3, the Respondent No.1(National Insurance Co. Ltd.) was exonerated of the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that there was a willful and conscious breach of the terms of the policy. 2. The Appellants being owner of the offending vehicle (the insured) and the driver of the offending vehicle challenge the judgment on the ground that the negligence on the part of the Second Appellant was not established; the compensation awarded is excessive and that the Second Appellant had applied for the grant of a transport licence before the date of the accident; thus the First Appellant was not guilty of willful breach of the terms of the policy and the Respondent No.1 Insurance Company was not entitled to be exonerated. 3. The Cross-Objections (registered as M...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Sudesh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns a judgment dated 09.03.2010 whereby a compensation of Rs.6,73,000/- was awarded for the death of Raj Karan, who while driving a Maruti Car No.DL-2CB-0973 belonging to the Tenth Respondent suffered fatal injuries on 16.04.1993. 2. A Claim Petition was filed by Respondents No.1 to 9 (the Claimants) alleging that on 16.04.1993 at about 4:00 P.M., the deceased was driving a car No.DL-2CB-0973 from Delhi to Gurgaon. When the car reached opposite Air force Museum, Palam Road, the steering of the car, on account of some mechanical defect, got free. The Maruti car went out of control and struck on the sidewalls of the culvert. The deceased suffered injuries which proved to be fatal. 3. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal), the Claimants stated that the deceased was working as a Property Dealer and was earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. On appreciation of evidence, th...
Tag this Judgment!Pantaloon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amer Sports Malaysia Sdn Bhd and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The learned Single Judge has allowedI.A.No.3347/2012 filed by the respondents, holding that the suit was not maintainable in India. It has been held that in view of Clause 22 of the Agreement dated April 01, 2010 only courts at Malaysia would have the jurisdiction to decide the issue raised in the plaint. 2. Clause 22 of the Agreement in question reads as under:- “22. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Malaysia and the parties hereby submit to the non exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Malaysia residing at Kuala Lumpur.” 3. Noting the decisions reported at (2004) 4 SCC 341 Modi Entertainment Network and Anr. Vs. W.S.G. Cricket Pte Ltd, 172 (2010) DLT 131 Parimal Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Diasorin S.P.A. and relying upon them and distinguishing the decisions reported as (2008) 1 SCC 618 Laxman Prasad Vs. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. and Anr. , 2006 Can L J 37880 Gary Sugar Vs. Megawheel Technologies Inc., (2012) SGC AA 16 Orcha...
Tag this Judgment!iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Smt Vinod and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. These two Cross-Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 01.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.64,48,952/- was awarded for the death of Satpal Singh Dagar, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 06.08.2010. 2. Both the parties urge that the computation of compensation has to be in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which should have been correctly applied. 3. The Appellant IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited urges that the deceased was more than 45 years so the appropriate multiplier should be ‘13’ and that the compensation awarded towards the loss of love and affection amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- is on the higher side. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Appellants in MAC APP.507/2012 (the Claimants) urges that the calculation towards payment of tax was not correctly...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Hari Om Goel and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns a judgment dated 12.07.2011 whereby several Claim Petitions including Suit No.01/06/2011 (out of which the present Appeal has arisen) were decided. A compensation of Rs.8,14,048/- was awarded for the death of deceased Shashi Bala who died in a motor accident which occurred on 11.05.2006. 2. Respondents No.1 to 4’s case before the Claims Tribunal was that on 1.05.2006 at about 5:00 A.M. the deceased Shashi Bala along with other relations was travelling in a Toyota Qualis No.HR-55D-0654. The vehicle (Toyota Qualis) was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent No.5. The vehicle went out of control and fell in a deep trench resulting into injuries to the occupants of the Toyota Qualis. In case of Shashi Bala, the injuries proved fatal. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) reached the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Bhagwan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2012
ORDER (ORAL) Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) In both these OAs since the facts are common, even the counsel representing both the parties are common, therefore, with their consent both the OAs are being disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of narrating facts, OA No.1758/2011 is taken as a lead case. 2. In OA 1758/2011, applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 1.9.2012 with the following allegations:- “ Shri Jai Bhagwan while working as DMS-II Sec.D/SSB during the year 2010 committed irregularities as under:- He failed to maintain his stock properly. The details of shortages found in his stock as a result of Account Stock-Verification are as under:- “Table” By the above act of omission and commission, he failed to maintain absolute integrity, displayed lack of devotion of duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant thereby contravened Ruled 3.1 (i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (C...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Himachal Futuristic Communications Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2012
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (‘BSNL’) has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenged an Award dated 1st June 2006 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the dispute between it and the Respondent Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited (‘HFCL’), formerly known as Himachal Telematics Limited (‘HTL’), arising out of a Purchase Order (‘PO’) dated 22nd February 1996 for supply of 148 numbers of 4/36 MARR systems in UHF range along with accessories. By the impugned Award the sole Arbitrator held that HFCL was entitled to be paid the differential amount subject to deduction of 5% Liquidated Damages (‘LD’) for supplies made during the extended delivery period as claimed by HFCL together with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date when payment became due till the actual date of payment. HFCL was also held entitled to the return of...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. Rameshwar Bhatt (Deceased) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2012
BY CHAIRPERSON: 1. Petitioner has already expired and an application to this effect has been filed by MA no. 98 of 2012 for deleting his name and substituting the name of his wife Mrs. Bhanu Bhatt and son Vivek Bhatt. Ordered accordingly and the name of the petitioner may be deleted and in the place of that, names of his wife and son may be substituted. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that proceedings of Court Martial held at Ramgarh after retirement of the petitioner from 6.4.1996 to 30.5.1996 may be quashed and respondents may be directed to restore his loss of seniority by 8 years for the purposes of pension. It is also prayed in the interest of justice that petitioner may be compensated for keeping him under close arrest after his retirement from 31.12.1995 to 04.10.1996. 3. The petitioner joined the National Defence Academy Khadakvasala in 1959 after meeting all the parameters laid down by the Govt. of India from time to time. He completed the training at NDA and IMA, D...
Tag this Judgment!Satyaveer Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2012
1. This review application has been moved by the applicant on 10th April 2012, against the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 21st July 2010, under Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Rules, 2008. He has also concurrently moved miscellaneous application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1965 read along with Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 for condoning of delay of near about 20 months in filing the review. 2. The main issues agitated by learned counsel for the applicant were that the summary court martial finished in a brief span of 10 R.A. No.16/2012 in T.A. No. 515 of 2009 Satyaveer Singh Vs. UOI and Ors. minutes which was inadequate to even complete the bare formalities necessary in completion of the SCM. It was argued that the Honble Supreme Court had time and again commented on this issue that due application of mind is necessary at all levels. It was argued that the same issue was raised before the Honble Tribunal and that has not been given due weightage...
Tag this Judgment!Naik (Ts) Devraj Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2012
S.S. Dhillon, Member. 1. Petitioner by this petition seeks setting aside of the impugned order of Army HQ dated 21st May 2009 whereby Respondents have supposedly complied with the Honble Delhi High Court order of 21st January 2008. The Petitioner seeks consequential extensions, promotions and benefits. 2. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 8th May 1979 as a driver in the Army Service Corps for an initial period of 17 years. The Petitioner was posted on 10th December 1988 to Branch Recruiting Office Belgaum. On 21st May 1989 while serving at Belgaum, he was sent on duty to the Zonal Recruiting Office Belgaum for collection of question papers. The Petitioner reached Bangalore on 22nd August 1989 and after collection of the sealed box containing the question papers, started back for Belgaum on the same day and reached his Unit on 23rd August 1989 and handed over the sealed box containing the question papers to the authorities. Subsequently the authorities realised that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »