Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2253 OF2018(Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No.7692 of 2017) Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Appellant(s) VERSUS TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI. The legal representatives of the deceased, Jagir Singh, the husband of the second respondent, preferred a claim petition being MACT Case No.70 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathankot (for short, the tribunal) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,00,000/. The claim petition was filed on the basis that on 19.02.2013, Jagir Singh was travelling to Pathankot on his motor cycle and at that juncture, the offending truck bearing temporary registration No.2 PB066894 belonging to the appellant No.2 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle of the deceased as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No(s). 5998 of 2019 (@SLP(C) No.23604/2014) M/s. Balwant Singh & Sons Appellant(s) Versus National Insurance Company Ltd & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud Leave granted. This appeal arises from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 11 March 2014 dismissing a revision petition filed by the appellant. The NCDRC upheld the view of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar2 and of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh3 that the insurer was not liable on a claim preferred under a policy of insurance for the loss of a vehicle occasioned by theft. 1 NCDRC 2 District Forum 3 SCDRC 2 The third respondent entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with ICICI Bank4, the second respondent through its Branch at Jalandhar in respect of a vehicle. Pursuant to the agreement, the third respondent paid a few instalments but the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.312 OF2023(@ SLP(C) No.12520 OF2022 The ESI Corporation ...Appellant(S) Versus M/s. Radhika Theatre ...Respondent(S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2021, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Civil Misc. Appeal No.125/2011, by which, the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has set aside the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Employees Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as the EI Court) dismissing EIC No.14/2003 in which the respondent herein challenged the demand notice dated 31.08.1994 issued by the ESI Corporation, the ESI Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 12. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: - 2.1 That the respondent herein was running a Cinema Theatre since 1981. It paid ESI contributions up to September, 1989. However, thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC71
Varadarajan J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the one word order dated 1.2.1980 of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 122 of 1980 in limine. The tenants who were respondents in the Rent Control Eviction Petition, filed the Civil Revision Petition against the Rent Controller's order dated 30.10.1979, declining to permit them to raise certain grounds of defence while granting leave to defend the eviction petition on certain other grounds. Special leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court has been granted by this Court only on the question whether Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is applicable or not to the facts and circumstances of the case 'in view of the later Circular of 1977'. The 'later Circular of 1977' mentioned in the special leave granted by this Court on 5.8.1980 is the Office Memorandum dated 14.7.1977 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC71b; 1981(3)SCALE1817; (1982)1SCC149; [1982]2SCR53; 1982(14)LC90(SC)
1 This appeal by special leave is directed against the one word order dated 1.2.1980 of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 122 of 1980 in limine. The tenants who were respondents in the Rent Control Eviction Petition, filed the Civil Revision Petition against the Rent Controller's order dated 30.10.1979, declining to permit them to raise certain grounds of defence while granting leave to defend the eviction petition on certain other grounds. Special leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court has been granted by this Court only on the question whether Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is applicable or not to the facts and circumstances of the case 'in view of the later Circular of 1977.' The 'later Circular of 1977' mentioned in the special leave granted by this Court on 5.8.1980 is the Office Memorandum dated 14.7.1977 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007ACJ1284; AIR2007SC1609; 2007(3)ALD99(SC); 2007(3)AWC2116(SC); [2007]137CompCas116(SC); (2007)3GLR2356(SC); JT2007(5)SC65; (2007)2MLJ1330(SC); 2007(3)MPHT1(SC); 2007(5)S
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. One Suresh Chandra Variyal was employed as a Regional Manager in M/s Apace Savings and Mutual Benefits (India) Ltd., the owner of a motor vehicle, respondent No. 3 herein. Variyal was provided with a car by the employer. The vehicle was insured with the appellant company in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There was no special contract. On 14.6.1999, the vehicle met with an accident. Suresh Chandra Variyal, died. The widow and daughter of Suresh Chandra Variyal, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nainital. Therein, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs. According to the claim, the deceased was driving along with his 'companion' Mahmood Hasan after completing his work for the employer. At about 11.30 pm the car collided with a tree due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The car was being driven by Mahmood Hasan at the time of the accident. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2268 OF2018(@ S.L.P. (C) No.33621 of 2017) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Appellant (s) VERSUS M/s Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI. The respondent M/s Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a Fire Industrial all Risk Policy No.31150/11/2014/65 in respect of the factory situated on plot Nos. 11 and 13, Gundichapada Industrial Estate, District Dhenkanal, Odisha. In October 2013, there was a cyclone 2 named as Phailin which affected large parts of the State of Odisha. Because of the said cyclone, the respondent suffered damages which it estimated at Rs. 3,93,36,224.00. An intimation was given to the appellant-insurer and it appointed one Ashok Chopra & Company as surveyor which visited the factory premises on 20th and 21st November, 2013. A series of correspondences were exchanged between the respondent and the insurer. On 22.12.2014, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 13554-13555 OF2022Board of Control for Cricket in India Appellant(s) Versus Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. Respondent(s) ORDER M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 24.06.2022 passed in First Appeal ST No.25980 of 2021 preferred by the appellant the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as BCCI) by which the High Court has dismissed the said first appeal, which was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Employees Insurance Court at Bombay dated 09.09.2021, declaring that the BCCI is covered within the meaning of shop as per notification 1 dated 18.09.1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1058889 OF2018(@ SLP (C) NO(S).1235912360 OF2018 SEBASTIANI LAKRA & ORS. . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta J.Leave granted.2. These appeals filed by the claimantsappellants are directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2017 delivered by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack whereby compensation of 2 Rs.40,90,000/ awarded by the IInd Addl. District Judge cumVth Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Rourkela (hereinafter referred to as the MACT) has been reduced to Rs.36,00,000/.3. The MACT found that the revised basic pay of the deceased was Rs.51,328/ and he was entitled to DA of Rs.7,237/ at the time of his death i.e. he was getting a total salary of Rs.58,565/. However, the MACT, for the purposes of compensation, assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.50,000/ per month and deducted 1/3 for his personal expenses leaving a datum figu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ARC877; 2005(2)AWC1585(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN124; JT2005(4)SC236; (2005)141PLR356; (2005)5SCC531
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Dr. C.P. Tandon, had a house in Lucknow. It was two storeyed. It had a plinth area of 3500 square feet. It was situate on a plot of land admeasuring 8892 square feet. Dr. C.P. Tandon died on 24.08.1977. The house devolved on his son K.K. Tandon. K.K. Tandon died in London on 10.06.1978 while having treatment for his illness. The building was inherited by his wife, Asha Tandon. Asha Tandon thus became the owner of the building.2. On 28.08.1978, respondent No. 1 before us, made an application for declaration of vacancy and allotment of the suit building to him as a tenant under Section 12, read with Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Inspector, an officer under the Act submitted a report on 11.09.1978 to the effect that the first floor of the building may be considered to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act, though a person claiming to be a caretaker was foun...
Tag this Judgment!