Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1040; AIR2008SC1310; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)784; 2008(1)AWC769(SC); 2008BusLR446(SC); I(2008)CPJ81(SC); (2008)3GLR2304(SC); JT2008(2)SC250; 2008(3)MhLj584; (2008)2MLJ1034(S); 2008AIRSCW1404; 2008(3)LH(SC)1956; 2008(2)ICC581
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the 'National Commission') dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant. Challenge before the Commission was to the order passed in appeal by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short the 'State Commission') which in turn had upheld the order passed by the District Forum, Shimla (in short the 'District Forum').3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:One Karan Singh Chandel (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') had taken a Life Insurance Policy and was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The annual premium payable was Rs. 12,821/-. The policy was taken on 28.3.1994. The annual premium which was to be paid on or before 28.3.1995 was not paid. In terms of the policy, the same became inoperative after one month. The insured died on 1.7.1995. A cheque drawn on Jogindra Coope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999ACJ116; 1998(4)ALLMR278; 1998(4)BomCR837; [2000]101CompCas29(Bom); 1998(3)MhLj537
ORDERPer P.S. Patankar, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 Life insurance Corporation of India to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the death of the insured till payment on the ground that there was a concluded contract between the parties in respect of the two Insurance Policies. The question, in short, involved is whether there was a concluded contract between the parties. A few facts are as under :-- Petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters and petitioner No. 1 is the widow of one late Mansukhlal Kothari. Mansukhlal Kothari had given proposal for two insurance policies for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 14th August, 1987. He also sent a cheque dated 18th September, 1987 for a sum of Rs. 4,169.25. Respondent No. 1accepted it and encashed it on 21st September, 1987. Mansukhlal Kothari died of heart attack on 28th Nove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition is against the order dated 27.12.2005 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 113 of 2000. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereafter, the LIC) against the order dated 29.09.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad (in short, the District Forum) in complaint case no. 1797 of 1993. 2(i)Complainant no. 2 before the District Forum was the nominee in the life insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- (with accident benefit) taken by her husband (Rasiklal Maganlal Panchal) with effect from 07.10.1989. The premium for the policy was to be paid half yearly. The premium due on 15.05.1991 was not paid even within the grace period of one month, which expired on 04.06.1991. The life assured died on 25.07.1991. The overdue premium was, however, paid with interest on 11.10.1991 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1977Mad72
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 2703 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant herein. Most of the facts are not in controversy. One Mr. Srinivasa Rao was an insurance agent who died issueless on 8-6-1966. The second respondent herein is his widow. The appellant and the third and fourth respondents are said to be his brothers, and the fifth respondent is said to be his sister. At the time of his death, his mother, by name, Uma Bai, also survived, but she died on 29-6-1968. The said Srinivasa Rao had married the second respondent herein under the Special Marriage Act, and, accordingly, under Section 33(b) of the Indian Succession Act, on the death of the said Srinivasa Rao, the second respondent herein being his widow would be entitled to a half share, and the appellant and respondent 3 to 5 would be entitled to the remaining half share in the estate of Srinivasa Rao. It is adverted in the plaint that after the death of Srinivasa Rao, the second respondent took ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1968Cal146
Sinha, C.J.1. The facts in this case art shortly as follows: The respondent Jatindra Kumar Das Choudhury was employed by the Hindustan Cables Ltd. of Rupnara-yanpur, Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as 'company'). Sometime in 1956 the employees of the company started a multipurpose co-operative society known as the Hindustan Cables Employee's Co-operative Society Ltd which was registered under the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'society'). The said respondent was appointed the Secretary of the said Society from its very inception The statutory auditor employed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal, took the audit of the said Society for the year 1960-61 and made his report dated the 26th of March 1963 On the basis of the said audit report, the Registrar dissolved the Managing Committee of the Society on the ground of mismanagement and appointed an administrator who was the Managing Direc-tor of the company. On or about the 6th of March 1963...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:12. h October, 2017 Judgment pronounced on:07. h November, 2017 + FAO (OS) 253/2017 & CM No.33724/2017 JAI KUMAR ARYA & ORS. .... Appellants Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Avinash Trivedi, Ms.Ritika Trivedi, Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Ms.Monica Tyagi and Mr.Tejasvi Chaudhary, Advs. CHHAYA DEVI & ANR. ......Respondents Through: Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Versus Mr.Ankur Goel, Mr.Kartik Bhardwaj, Mr.Piyush Singh, Mr.Jaideep Singh and Mr.Sarthak Katyal, Advs. CORAM:-"HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % JUDGMENT0711.2017 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.1 The order, dated 11th September 2017, under challenge in the present appeal, has been passed by the learned Single Judge in IA96182017, preferred by Respondent No.1 Chhaya Devi under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC), in CS (OS) 285/2017. FAO (OS) 253/2017 Page 1 of 116 2 The affairs forming subject matter of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were heard together and we propose to deliver this common judgment for the disposal of the two appeals.2. I.T.A. No. 15 of 2002 relates to the assessment year 1982-83 and the I.T.A. No. 16 of 2002 relates to the assessment year 1983-84 and are directed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.3. The I.T.A. No. 15 of 2002 has been admitted for hearing on the following two questions:1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 3(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act is applicable on the association of persons born out of joint-venture agreement instead of right section i.e. Section 3(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961?2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law for not passing any order on cross objection on the points of initiatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(1)JCR18(SC)]; JT2004(8)SC29; 2004(8)SCALE25; (2004)12SCC390
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The appellant calls in question the judgment and order dated 1.8.2003 of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, by which a quarry lease granted in favour of the appellant was quashed and cancelled.2. On 11.2.1993 one Jitendra Kumar Lohia was granted quarry lease No.192 for quarrying of decorative stones in village Gandhargola, Tehsil Titilagarh, District Bolangir, Orissa. The said lease was for a period of 10 years from11.02.1993 to 10.2.2003. The said Jitendra Kumar Lohia and members of his family formed and incorporated themselves into a company under the Companies Act, 1956, in the name and style of Medley Minerals India Private Limited the appellant before us. Jitendra Kumar Lohia is one of the Directors of the said company. On 15 th October 1998 Jitendra Kumar Lohia applied to the competent authority under the Orissa Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'he Rules') for transfer of the lease under Rule 12 in favour of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(4)MPHT66; 2001(3)MPLJ246
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 3-3-97 passed by the Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 61/96.2. The applicant is aggrieved by framing of charges under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (henceforth 'the Act of 1947'). He is also being prosecuted for the aforesaid offences with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. There are other charges framed under the provisions of Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of IPC. This Court is not concerned with the charges framed against the applicant under the provisions of Penal Code and Section 120B thereof so far as it is applicable to those offences. The revision is confined to framing of charges under Section 5(1)(d) read with Sections (2) of the Act and the allegations of conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC so far as it relates to those charges.3. It has been argued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]247ITR351(SC); JT2001(1)SC144; 2000(8)SCALE210; [2000]Supp5SCR518
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These are appeals that relate to the same assessee, Prince Muffkham Jah; they are in respect of the Assessment Years 1969-70 to 1975-76 and 1977-78. They raise the same question. That question was referred on the application of the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. The question reads thus:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) order who directed the Wealth Tax Officer to exclude the amount for the assessment year 1977-78 relating to the life interest of the assessee added by the Wealth Tax Officer in accordance with Rule 1B of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957.2. The principal judgment of the High Court was delivered in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax v. Prince Muffkham Jah Bahadur 1861 TR.421, which is challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 2388 to 2394 of 1994, and it was fo...
Tag this Judgment!