Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)

Phool Kumari Devi vs Krishna Deo Upadhya And Anr. on 25 November, 1997

8. Counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in Venkat Dharmaji Gontalwar v. Vishwanath , and Rama Devi v. Sanganer Co-operative Housing Society . In the former case the plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the property under agreement which was not denied by the defendant. In the latter case, the Court found that the plaintiff was in possession. In the present case no averment as to having been put in possession by virtue of the alleged agreement has even been made in the whole of the plaint. The ratio of the above said decision, therefore, cannot be applicable in the present case.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Ganga Devi And Ors. vs O.S. Motors Limited And Anr. on 1 March, 2007

10.1. As stated above, the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 4-An are mandatory in nature. Therefore, the learned Commissioner was duty bound to impose an interest of 12% upon the employer and the Insurance Company jointly and severally. Furthermore, he was duty bound to impose a penalty up to 50% of the amount due upon the employer. The said penalty could not be imposed on the Insurance Company as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases. Refer to: Ved Prakash Garg and Ors. v. Premi Devi and Ors. 1998 TAC 215 and Smt. Rama Devi and Ors. v. The Sanganer Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. 1986 Rules 1018. Therefore, this Court has no option but to modify the award dated 17.1.05 in the following terms.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document
1