Posts

Showing posts from May, 2012

in a motor accident case , suppressing the accident on the day , the accident bus was insured and cover note was taken for laying claim. Their Lordships set aside the lower court award = It is established on record that the accident took place on 13.01.1995 at about 12:40 pm. The cover note Ex.RW1/A does not bear any time of issue. The cover note No.240327(Ex.RW1/D) was issued by RW2 prior to Ex.RW1/A. A perusal of Ex.RW1/D reveals that the same was issued at 12:45 pm. Thus, the cover note No.240329 (Ex.RW1/A) could be issued after cover note 240327 and 240328. It is, therefore, evident and as stated by RW2, the cover note Ex.RW1/A could not have been issued before 12:40 pm i.e. before the time of the accident. This is further supported from the fact that the premium amount in respect of the cover note Ex.RW1/A was deposited with the Insurance Company only on 16.01.1995. It is important to note that a written statement dated 02.03.1998 was filed by the Appellant before the Claims Tribunal on 23.03.1998. In para 2 of the preliminary objections, the Appellant stated as under: “II. That the answering respondent has no liability towards the subject claim because the Insured – Respondent No.2, Sanjay Kumar, obtained cover Note No.2403029 for offending vehicle DBP-906 effective for the period 13.1.95 to 12.1.96 (date of accident 13.1.95) by concealment and suppression of material facts re.the accident already occurred on the same day i.e. 13.1.95, of taking Policy. The Policy, so obtained, is therefore void-ab-initio.”FAO. No224/2002 Page 6 of 6 7. Although, the counsel for the Respondent No.8 was present before the Claims Tribunal on 23.03.1998, but the Respondent No.8 preferred not to contradict the averments made in the written statement filed by the Appellant. Rather thereafter, he preferred not to contest the proceedings and was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. This shows Respondent No.8’s conduct. The Appellant Insurance Company, therefore, established that the cover note Ex.RW1/A was issued after the accident and thus this policy was void as the factum of accident was not disclosed by the Respondent no.8. The Appellant Insurance Company was, therefore, entitled to avoid the policy. It, however, having paid the amount is entitled to recover the same from Respondent No.8, owner of the bus No.DBP-906 involved in the accident. 8. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. It is directed that the Appellant Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid along with interest without undertaking separate proceedings in execution of this very judgment. 9. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. 10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

FAO. No224/2002        Page 1 of 6
$~43
* IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
Date of decision: 1st May, 2012
+  FAO. No.224/2002
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.          ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.  Ram N. Sharma,  Advocate
Versus
SMT. ANARA DEVI & ORS.   ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns a judgment
dated 11.02.2002 whereby a compensation of  `3,58,500/- was
awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 6 for the death
of the deceased  Shitla Prasad Shukla who died in a motor
accident which occurred on 13.01.1995.
2. The ground of challenge is that the cover note Ex.RW1/A in
respect of the offending vehicle bus No.DBP-906 was
fraudulently obtained after the accident and the Insurance
Company had no liability to pay the compensation.
3. It is the admitted case of the parties that the cover note
Ex.RW1/A was issued on 13.09.1994 i.e. on the …

in motor accident claim. the deceased is aged 26 years, mother 55 years, father 58 years, salary of deceased Rs.2,40,000/- Their lord ships enhanced compensation = The letter dated 07.09.2006 clearly shows that the deceased was a confirmed employee of India Bulls. Considering that the MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 3 of 4 deceased was a highly qualified person, aged about 26 years who was at the threshold of his career and was a confirmed employee, the Appellants were therefore entitled to an addition of 50% in the deceased’s income towards future prospects. 7. The Claims Tribunal while making deduction towards personal and living expenses took the average age of the parents to determine the loss of dependency. It was observed that the deceased’s mother was aged 55 years and his father was aged 58 years on the date of the accident. Since father is not considered as a dependant, the age of the deceased’s mother i.e. 55 years would be considered to determine the multiplier which would be ‘11’. The loss of dependency thus comes to `19,05,750/- (2,40,000/- - 9,000/- + 50% x 1/2 x 11). 8. On adding conventional sums of `25,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection and `10,000/- each towards Funeral Expenses and Loss to Estate, the overall compensation comes to `19,50,750/-. 9. The compensation is thus enhanced from `10,54,500/- to `19,05,750/- which shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit. 10. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to make the deposit of the enhanced compensation of `8,51,250/- alongwith interest within six weeks with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi in the proportion as MAC. APP. 224/2012 Page 4 of 4 awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the name of the Appellants. 11. The enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the Appellants in terms of the Tribunal’s order. 12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

MAC. APP. 224/2012        Page 1 of 4
* IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
  Date of decision: 1
st
May, 2012
+  MAC.APP. 224/2012
DINESH SINGH & ANR                          ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate
versus
RAMA NAND SINGH & ORS                         ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of
`10,54,500/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) for the death of Rupesh Kumar, who died in a
motor accident which took place on 01.09.2008.
2. The deceased was B.Sc. (Hons.) and held a Postgraduate
Diploma in Management. He was employed as a Relationship
Manager with India Bulls Securities Limited.  He was earning a
sum of  `2,40,000/- per annum and was confirmed by a
Confirmation letter dated 07.09.2006.
3. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-
(i) The future prospects were…

The question as to whether it is competent for the Municipal Corporation to insist on production of TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from revenue authority is no longer res integra. In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad[1], this Court dealt with that very question and held that a local authority cannot insist on production of TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from the revenue authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.5843 of 2012
Between:
GummaJagannadhaRao                                                                   …       PetitionerAnd
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Rep.by its Chief Commissioner,Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and another.                                                                   …       Respondents






































THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.5843 of 2012
ORDER:                                                
          The petitioner intended to

OFFICIAL RECEIVER OBJECTIONS NOT TENABLE FOR EXECUTING MORTGAGE DECREE AS IT IS SECURED DECREEe instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a secured creditor being a mortgagee. A perusal of decree, dated 16-03-2007, shows that the same is in the nature of a mortgage decree. Therefore, the petitioner falls within the exception carved out to Section 28 of the Act. This Court, in the judgments referred to above, has held in no uncertain terms that a secured creditor is entitled to recover the money payable under a decree notwithstanding pendency of insolvency petition under the Act. The Court below has, therefore, committed serious jurisdictional error in raising the attachment and closing the EP. In the premises as above, Order, dated 20-12-2007, in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in OP.No.7 of 2005, on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur, is set aside. Consequently, E.P.No.14 of 2007 stands restored to file. The lower Court is directed to proceed with the EP regardless of the pendency or outcome of the Insolvency Petition filed by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a sequel, CMP.No.564 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

Civil Revision Petition No.430 of  2008

19-01-2012

 K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy

The Official Receiver of Entire Kadapa District,
District Court Compound, Kadapa and another

^Counsel for the petitioner:    Mr.V.V.Subrahmanyam for Sri S.V.Bhatt

!Counsel for the respondent:    -----

? Cases referred:
1. 1998 (1) ALT 740
2. 1999 (2) ALT 305
3. 1999 (2) ALT 305

Order:
Feeling aggrieved by Order, dated 20-12-2007, in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in OP.No.7 of
2005, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at
Proddatur, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner, who is a mortgagee, secured a decree for recovery of certain
amounts from respondent No.2 in OS.No.7 of 2005.  In order to execute the said
decree, the petitioner filed EP.No.14 of 2007.  While the said EP was pending,
respondent No.2 instituted insolvency proceedings, under the provisions of the
Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short &#…

RESERVING A RIGHT TO ADDUCE REBUTAL EVIDENCE MUST BE DONE BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE=The Judgment in S. Chandra Keerti (1-supra) does not help the petitioner, because, in that case, it was held that that when the law does not prescribe a stage at which a party should apprise the Court of his exercising the option under Rule 3 of Order XVIII of the Code, it is reasonable that the same should be done before he begins to adduce his evidence and in any case before the other party begins his evidence so that it might be borne in mind that the party beginning has not closed his evidence. Even this Judgment recognized the right of the plaintiff to reserve his right to lead further evidence after closure of the evidence of the defendant. All that the said Judgment laid down was that such an option should be exercised by the plaintiff before the defendant begins his evidence. In the present case, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondent has exercised such an option before the petitioner commenced his evidence. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, CRP.M.P.No.7250/2011 is disposed of as infructuous.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

C.R.P.No.5110 of 2011

20-1-2012

Mangala Pagadala Subbamma    

M. Narayanappa

 Counsel for petitioner : Sri N. Aswarthanarayana

 Counsel for respondent : --

?CASES REFERRED:    
1. AIR 1971 Mysore 17


ORDER:
        This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 23-6-2011 of the
learned Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram whereby he has allowed the Memo filed by
the respondent, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.73/2008, to close the evidence on
his side reserving his right to let in further evidence after the petitioner-
defendant completing his evidence.
        I have heard Sri N. Aswarthanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner
and perused the record.
        The respondent filed the above mentioned suit for declaration of his title
to the suit property against the petitioner.  After adducing evidence on his
side, the respondent filed the above mentioned Memo with a request to the Court
below to close the evidence on his …

LESS ATTENDANCE IN COLLEGE DEBARS FROM WRITING EXAMS=The petitioner by the time of filing of the Writ Petition was in IV year 1st semester B.Tech (Bio-technology) course studying in the 2nd respondent's college i.e. Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, which is affiliated to 1st respondent University. She was not allowed to take IV year 1st semester examinations scheduled from 08.11.2010, on the ground that she was not having required percentage of attendance.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU          

WRIT PETITION No.27426 of 2010

20.01.2012

Ms.Udari Lata Maisaiah

The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University & another

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswara Rao

Counsel for Respondent No.1: K.Rathanga Pani Reddy

^Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mohan Vinod & Associates

? Cases referred:
2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.)

ORDER:

The petitioner by the time of filing of the Writ Petition was in IV year 1st
semester B.Tech (Bio-technology) course studying in the 2nd respondent's college
i.e. Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, which
is affiliated to 1st respondent University.  She was not allowed to take IV year
1st semester examinations scheduled from 08.11.2010, on the ground that she was
not having required percentage of attendance.  Questioning the same, the
petitioner approached this Court with this Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking…

Delay in fling cheque bounce complaint = But the acknowledgment card evidencing the receipt of the notice by the accused was not received by the petitioner and he has preferred complaints before the postal authorities and made personal enquiries also. He obtained a letter on 16/4/2005 from the Manager, Customer Care center, Ernakulam whereby he was informed that the matter is being enquired into. Subsequently, he persuaded the matter through his lawyer by filing complaint on 04/05/2005 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam. Then on 28/5/2005, he received a letter from the Customer Care centre, Ernakulam that the registered letter issued to the accused was delivered on 01/03/2005. After receipt of information from the postal authorities that the notice was delivered to the accused on 01/03/2005 which was intimated to the complainant only on 28/5/2005, the complaint was filed before the concerned court on 02/06/2005 along with petition to condone the delay. 4. As per the proviso to Section 142(b) of the N.I.Act which was inserted by Act 55 of 2002 came into effect from 06/02/2003, cognizance of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be taken by the court even after Crl.R.P.No.2043/2005 3 the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in Section 142(b). In the present case sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the complaint were specifically stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate mistakenly overlooked the reasons stated therein and also the amended provisions of Section 142(b). It is not proper rather justifiable to dismiss the complaint for the fault on the part of the postal department and without any willful default on the part of the petitioner/complainant.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2043 of 2005()


1. KARUNAKARAN, S/O. VELU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUNILKUMAR, S/O. KUMARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :22/06/2011

 O R D E R
                            M.C.HARI RANI, J
                            * * * * * * * * * * * *
                     Crl.R.P.No.2043 of 2005
                    ----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 22nd day of June 2011

                               O R D E R

      Petitioner  in    Crl.M.P.No.2678/2005                is the revision

petitioner. That petition was filed to condone the delay of 46

days in lodging the complaint. The complaint was filed under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned

Chief Judi…

THE ACCUSED PROVED THAT THE CHEQUE WAS OBTAINED BY FORCE=18. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner herein/accused, complaining harassment at the instance of the respondent herein/complainant by the police personnel, filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail before this court in Crl.O.P.No.8913/2006 and the same was dismissed based on the representation of the police that the complaint was treated as a petition and the same was closed on 12.04.2006 itself after enquiry. A certified copy of the order passed by this court on 17.04.2006 in the above said Criminal Original Petition has been produced and marked as Ex.D1. After having the said anticipatory bail petition dismissed on the premise that no case was pending as the complaint itself was closed after enquiry, the respondent herein/complainant seems to have waited for four more months, then presented the cheque for collection and thereafter preferred the private complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In this regard, no acceptable explanation explaining the sequence of the said events is forthcoming from the respondent herein/complainant. On the other hand, the petitioner herein/accused has come forward with an explanation that, since it was represented by the police before the High Court itself that the complaint had been closed after enquiry and the Assistant Commissioner of Police promised him to get back the cheque in question, he did not prefer any complaint against the police personnel and did not issue any notice. It is true that for the statutory notice issued by the respondent herein/complainant under Ex.P4, the petitioner herein/accused did not issue any reply. The mere fact that no reply was issued, will not amount to an admission of the case of the respondent herein/complainant. 20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case succeeds and the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is hereby set aside. The petitioner herein/accused is acquitted of the offence with which he stood charged. The fine amount paid, if any, is to be refunded to him. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :  11.03.2011

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

Crl.R.C.No.972 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010


D.Karthikeyan.. Petitioner

Vs

M.Selvaraj.. Respondent


PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment dated 16.08.2010 made in C.A.No.46 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Poonamallee confirming the order of conviction dated 29.10.2008 made in C.C.No.693/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee and acquit the petitioner/accused herein.


For Petitioner:  Mr.A.Laxmi Raj Rathnam

For Respondent:  Mr.C.N.Raman
-----

O R D E R
The accused in C.C.No.693/2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, a case instituted on a private complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which ended in conviction resulting in the imposition of a sentenc…

THE NOTICNOTICE WAS ISSUED TO WHOM ? WHETHER IT IS VALID ? I49. As stated earlier, in C.A.Nos.321 and 326, the notice was issued to the tenant as well as to the drawer of the cheque, but he is described as Chairman and Managing Director of the tennent. The body of the notice would explain that for the rent due and payable by the first party, the second party had issued the cheque. The complaint was filed against the second party with a description 'Managing Director, Jewel Base Target Private Limited'. In my considered view, when the drawer has been addressed with or without any description of his position and when the intention of the holder of the cheque was to make a demand for the payment of the dishonored cheque from such drawer, the provision under section 138 (b) of the Act is satisfied. Sec.138(b) contemplates issuance of notice to the drawer demanding payment and the notice and its content is important then the address. When a person has issued the cheque towards the legally enforceable debt of a company, merely describing the drawer of the cheque by his position as Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, will not invalidate the notice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :     1.02.2011

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.321, 323, 324 and 326 of 2007



S.M. Omar..Appellant in C.A.Nos.321 and 326/2007

P. Mohaideen Candu      ..Appellant in C.A.No.323/2007
by Power of Attorney

Basheer Ahamed..Appellant in C.A.No.324/2006

vs

Zackaria Thomas         ..Respondent in all the appeals



Appeals filed under Sec.378 Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 26.4.2006 on the file of the learned XVII M.M., Saidpet, Chennai  made in Special C.C.Nos.15 of 2003, 4220 of 2004, 4223 of 2004 and 1618 of 2004.


For appellants :  Mr. S. Natana Rajan

For respondent :  Mr.Ganesh Rajan for
 M/s Gita Asokan



COMMON JUDGMENT

Appellants in these  appeals are the complainants before the  learned XVII M.M., Saidapet, Chennai who preferred  private complaints under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and all the appeals are preferred against the judgment of the learned  XVII M.M., Saidapet, Chennai.

2. Since all the…