Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 18 February, 2002
The Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Andhra
Pradesh Rythu Sangham v. Union of India and others (referred supra),
considered the similar issue and held that the scheme benefits the
farmer indemnifying them against the crop loss. The amount of loan will
be recovered from the insurance amount thereby a double purpose is
6
W.P.(PIL) No.136 of 2016 dated 21.02.2018
7
W.P.No.1668 of 2005 dated15.01.2015
CPKJ & MSM,J
17 WP (PIL) No.62 of 2016
served. The poor cultivator is indemnified against loss and the financial
institutions which are Co-operative Banks are indemnified against loss
by the General Insurance Corporation. This is a social security measure
meant for the benefit of rural population and benefits only those who
take loans from the financial institutions. In other words, it is limited to
the class of people who are getting subsidised loans from such
institutions who themselves have got to be saved against run by general
calamities affecting the area in question. Such a scheme cannot be said
to be in any manner, unreasonable or arbitrary. But, this principle has
no application to the present issue, as to the maintainability of the writ
petition by way of public interest litigation.
Nand Construction Company vs Regional Manager (The), Oriental ... on 8 December, 2005
The facts in the above judgment
are almost identical to the facts in Nand Construction Company v.
Regional Manager (referred supra). The Supreme Court held as follows:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.K.J. Corporation on 21 August, 1996
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on another judgment
of Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v.
M.K.J. Corporation (referred supra).
Bindwal Primary Agriculture Credit ... vs The State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2019
In support of the claim, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3
& 4 placed reliance on the judgment of Patna High Court Primary
Cooperative Society v. The State of Bihar and others (referred supra),
which is identical to the present facts of the case. In the facts of the
5
CWJC No.12227 of 1999 dated 10.07.2003
CPKJ & MSM,J
16 WP (PIL) No.62 of 2016
above judgment, public interest litigation was filed raising a contention
that crop in certain villages was damaged due to floods in the year 1996.
But, the claims have not been settled and no compensation was paid.
Therefore, the primary cooperative society filed public interest litigation
before High Court of Patna and the Division Bench of Patna High Court
held that, insurance is a contract between two parties and this cannot be
made subject matter of public interest litigation. If the contract is
breached, then there is a civil remedy, which the law provides, thereby,
the petition is misconceived and dismissed the petition. Though the
principle laid down by the Patna High Court is not binding precedent,
but it has got persuasive value.
Municipal Corporation vs Bvg India Limited on 27 March, 2018
In view of law laid down in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & ANR.
Vs. BVG India Ltd. and Ors (referred supra), Miss Tana Hewali v. The
State of Arunachal Pradesh (referred supra) and Wallamphang Roy vs.
State of Meghalaya and Ors (referred supra), the present writ petition is
liabel to be rejected at the threshold.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Smt.Asha Goel & Anr on 13 December, 2000
Similarly, in The Oriental Insurance Company and another, Life
Insurance Corporation v. Smt. Asha Goel and another (referred
supra), the Supreme Court considered about maintainability of the writ
petition for enforcement of claim under the contract of insurance. But, is
none of the judgments, the Apex Court did discuss anything about
maintainability of the public interest litigation in contractual matters.
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. on 28 August, 1992
2004 (2) GLT 403
CPKJ & MSM,J
20 WP (PIL) No.62 of 2016
Issue of locus-standi was again considered by the Supreme Court
in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and others12 wherein the Supreme
Court relying on the observation expressed in Subhash Kumar v. State
of Bihar13 held that, only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach
the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of
their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under
the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance,
deserves rejection at the threshold.
Subhash Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 January, 1991
2004 (2) GLT 403
CPKJ & MSM,J
20 WP (PIL) No.62 of 2016
Issue of locus-standi was again considered by the Supreme Court
in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and others12 wherein the Supreme
Court relying on the observation expressed in Subhash Kumar v. State
of Bihar13 held that, only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach
the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of
their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under
the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance,
deserves rejection at the threshold.
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Former ... vs The State Of Karnataka, Department Of ... on 13 September, 2007
Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11967 of 2016] dated 27.03.2018
CPKJ & MSM,J
18 WP (PIL) No.62 of 2016
In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and
others9, the Apex Court observed that the scope of interference of Court
in contractual matters is very limited and that the tender issuing
authority/ Airport Authority of India has fully justified its policy
decision and no bias or malafide on the part of any authority or person
connected thereto has been established by the Petitioners and concluded
that the preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition is
justified and the Petitioner, through this public interest litigation, cannot
seek to assail the terms, on which the Respondent/authority should
award its tender or what conditions should be prescribed, when he is not
a participating party in the tender.