Search by Keywords x
Indlaw Home                                                                                          contact us contact us | home help
 Welcome Guest | Sep 23 2014
 

HOME

Search By Databases
  

Subject Modules
  down

State Modules
  down

Legal Focus
  down

 

Login

  Subscribe


Latest Updates
Search by Databases
Indlaw Resources
Indlaw Channels

indlaw updates


Judgments

Ram Naresh @ Bacchan vs State of Uttar Pradesh  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

Ram Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

M. Sundaram, Sole Proprietor vs THAYAR' Food Products and others  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

Dipesh Harishbhai Talati vs State of Gujarat  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

Lalit Kumar Kashavram Shahu vs State of Gujarat  [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

Shiv Mehra vs University of Delhi and another  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

Babita Devi vs State of Haryana and others  [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

Mansing Ramu Khade vs Dr. Ramesh Rajaram Bhoite  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 15 Sep 2014]
Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Complaint - Respondent filed complaint against petitioner alleging deficiency in service - District Forum allowed the complaint - Petitioner filed an appeal, State Commission modified the order of District Forum - Hence instant revision petition - Whether complaint filed by respondent before the District Forum, was within the period of limitation or the same was barred by limitation -

Held, bonds in question were purchased in the year 1943. The deceased had received the interest only from 14-1-1944 to 14-1-1945. Thereafter, various representations were made and finally on 20-3-2002 a legal notice was sent to the petitioner. By serving the legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended by the respondent. Thus on the face of it, the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum, was hopelessly barred by limitation. Admittedly, no application for condonation of delay was filed on behalf of the respondent before the District Forum. Both the fora below did not consider the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner, regarding limitation. Since, complaint filed before the District Forum was hopelessly barred by limitation, both the fora below have committed grave error and illegality in allowing the same. Revision allowed.

Ratio : By serving the legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended by the respondent.


Shivlochan and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

Usha Shrikant Rege vs Gauri Gajanan Rege  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

I .T.O., Chandigarh vs Avinash Singh Grewal  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 15 Sep 2014]

Hiranmoy Das @ Tubai and another vs State of West Bengal  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 15 Sep 2014]

P. C. Khulbe S/o R. D. Khulbe vs Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 12 Sep 2014]

Space Management Limited, Ahmedabad vs DCIT, Ahmedabad  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 12 Sep 2014]

Deepak Natwarlal Parekh vs Tejas Natwarlal Parekh  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

Arvind Shamji Chheda vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs LIC Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

Woodland Manufacturers Limited vs Shakti Prasad Garga  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

Bishnu Kant Thakur vs Environment and Forests  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]

Vinod Kumar Singhal vs Revenue Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]

Satish Chand vs BSES Yamuna Power Limited  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]

Rakesh Kumar vs Food and Supply Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]

Kamini Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

Dr. R. D. Chauhan vs State of Himachal Pradesh and another  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]
Service - Transfer order - Assailed - Petitioner assailed transfer order whereby he got transferred from Chamba to Reckong Peo - Petitioner already completed his normal tenure at Chamba - Petitioner earlier remained posted at Chamba -

Held, transfer is an incidence of service. It is for the employer where an employee has to be posted in public interest. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. The Court can intervene only when the transfer has been made in infraction of any statutory rule or the same is actuated with mala fides. petitioner has not alleged any specific mala fides. Petition dismissed.


(1) ICICI Bank Limited Through Branch Manager, Johari Bazar, Jaipur; (2) United India Insurance Company Limited Through duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi vs Prem Kishan Garg and others  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 12 Sep 2014]
Consumer Protection - Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Complaint - Dismissal - Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs complainant filed complaint - District Forum dismissed the complaint - On appeal filed by complainant State Commission allowed the complaint - Hence instant revision petition - Whether State Commission was justified in passing the impugned order -

Held, after scheme of amalgamation was notified, previous contracts between Bank of Rajasthan and United India Insurance Co. stood terminated and petitioner/insurance co. was not under any obligation to renew insurance policy on the basis of previous premium amount on which, earlier renewals were made. In the proposal form itself it has clearly been mentioned that renewal will be subject to premium rates prevailing at the time of renewal meaning thereby renewal was not to be effected on the basis of rate of premium prevailing at the time of grant of original policy, but was subject to renewal on the basis of prevailing premium rate. State Commission by impugned order directed OP to renew the policy after receiving premium of Rs.7181/- till complainant attains age of 85 years without any basis. Insurance Company cannot be restrained from increasing insurance premium as per provisions of the Act. By impugned order, State Commission directed OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- in case they do not wish to continue the scheme of Medi-claim Policy which is apparently not proper. Complainant got Medi-Claim policy for Rs. 5,00,000/- subject to payment of premium every year upto the age of 85 years. State Commission committed error in allowing complaint and District Forum rightly dismissed complaint. Revisions allowed.




 Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer