Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.57 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd on 7 April, 2017
In support, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works 2017 (5) SCC 776; (ii) Mukhdeo Singh & Anr. Vs. Harakh Nrayan Singh & Ors. in AIR 1931 Patna 285 (291); and (iii) Zila Parishad (District Board) Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Anr. in AIR 1965 Allahabad 599.
Zila Parishad (District Board) vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Anr. on 2 February, 1965
In support, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works 2017 (5) SCC 776; (ii) Mukhdeo Singh & Anr. Vs. Harakh Nrayan Singh & Ors. in AIR 1931 Patna 285 (291); and (iii) Zila Parishad (District Board) Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Anr. in AIR 1965 Allahabad 599.
Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995
He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrikant G. Mantri Vs Punjab National Bank in C.A. No. 11397 of 2016 dated 22.02.2022 wherein it was held on the basis of Laxmi Engineering (supra) that services availed exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood and by means of self-employment will also have to be construed in context with the purpose of the enactment of the Act. No business to business relationship has been established by the opposite party for the services availed to be considered as a "commercial" purpose. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant was not a consumer under the ambit of Section 2 (d) (1) of the Act according to the complainant does not sustain.
M/S. Cheema Engineering Services vs Rajan Singh on 1 November, 1996
The burden is on the opposite party according to Cheema Engineering (supra) to prove whether the complainant is not self-employed i.e. earning his livelihood from the goods.
Shrikant G. Mantri vs Punjab National Bank on 22 February, 2022
He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrikant G. Mantri Vs Punjab National Bank in C.A. No. 11397 of 2016 dated 22.02.2022 wherein it was held on the basis of Laxmi Engineering (supra) that services availed exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood and by means of self-employment will also have to be construed in context with the purpose of the enactment of the Act. No business to business relationship has been established by the opposite party for the services availed to be considered as a "commercial" purpose. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant was not a consumer under the ambit of Section 2 (d) (1) of the Act according to the complainant does not sustain.
Samruddhi Co Operative Housing Society ... vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. ... on 11 January, 2022
It was also argued, vide Samruddhi Cooperative (supra), that the complaint cannot be rejected on the ground that it is a recovery proceedings and not a consumer dispute and, therefore, not maintainable.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sony Cheriyan on 19 August, 1999
Risk Description : Poultry Farms (Excluding birds therein)
Block Description : 1
SMI Desc Nature of Stock Sum Insured
Furniture, fixture & fittings - CAGES. 24,62,000
Building - POULTRY SHEDS. 65,61,000
Stock - FEED 25,00,000
Cover Wise Details : Cover Name Sum Insured Premium
Fire Basic Cover 1,15,23,000 12,963.38
Earth Quake Cover 1,15,23,000 864.23
Place: NAMAKKAL For and on behalf of
Date: 06/12/2007 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
It is also evident that under the previous policies, i.e., policy no. 453403/11/2008/244 for the period 07122007 to 06.12.2008 and policy no. 454700/11/2010/51 for the period 07.05.2009 - 06.05.2010 the risk covered was for "Fire Basic Cover" and "Earthquake Cover". The risk of a natural calamity such as a storm or cyclone was not included under the policy. It is thus clear that risks covered under it related to only fire and earthquake. The Complainant's claim for the incident of a natural calamity involving heavy wind and cyclone, which is not covered under the policy has been repudiated by the opposite party on the basis of the policy conditions and, therefore, cannot be faulted. In several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission it has been held that the terms of a contract of insurance cannot be re-written and only risks which are covered can be indemnified. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance vs Sony Cheriyan (1999) 6 SCC 451, wherein it was laid down that an insurance policy represents a contract between the insurers and insured, the terms of which have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer and the insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The contention of the complainant in this regard cannot be sustained for this reason.
Standard Chartered Bank Ltd vs Dr. B.N. Raman on 14 July, 2006
In support of this contention reliance is placed on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (a) Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N. Raman [2006(5) SCC 727] (b) Sunil Kohli Vs Purearth Infrastructures Ltd., Civil Appeal nos.9004-9005 of 2018 decided on 01.10.2019. As regards the applicability of limitation, the complainant contends that since his claim has not been settled despite a written communication dated 07.05.2009, there was a continuing cause of action and, therefore, the complaint filed on 04.09.2015 was within time.