Uttaranchal Court October 2001 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Vidya Joshi and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: I(2003)ACC92; 2002ACJ2074
A.A. Desai, C.J. and P.C. Verma, J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant at length.2. The deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 45 years. The Tribunal estimated his monthly income at Rs. 1.8OO and awarded compensation of Rs. 2.16.000. We do not see any reason that the amount as awarded is exorbitant.3. Sri Manoj Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant, further urged that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was not holding any driving licence. As such, the appellant company could not be saddled with the responsibility of compensation. We are not impressed by the ground as raised. However, the insurance company can prosecute against the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law for the liability saddled on the appellant.4. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observation....
Ravindra Kumar Pant and anr. Vs. Chancellor, Kumaon University and ors ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC5
A. A. Desai, C.J. and M. C. Jain,J.1. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioners are the Executive Councillors of the Kumaon University. They made a representation to the Chancellor pointing out certain irregularities in the functioning of the Vice-Chancellor. Initially, they filed a writ petition since the representations were not decided. Ultimately order was passed deciding representation. The Chancellor after receiving the reply and explanation from the Vice-Chancellor reached the conclusion that the Irregularities as pointed out could not be substantiated. Hence, he rejected the representation.Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us that they being the complainants.were entitled to have the copy of the reply as also right of participation in the proceedings before the Chancellor since the proceedings were quasi-judicial in nature.3. The submission is totally untenable. The Chancellor is the administrative head of th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›