ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

126 received the compensation. In the present case, 50% as awarded has already been paid by the other Insurance Company, namely, United India Insurance Company. 6. The argument of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel that Tata Sumo was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy has not been disputed by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company. Hence, in view of the principles decided by this <strong>Court</strong> in Arati Mishra (supra), the claimants are entitled to get compensation. So far as income is concerned, since the notional income as provided under Schedule-2 has been taken into consideration by learned Tribunal, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Tribunal to ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMP. -V- M.SAHOO [B.N.MAHAPATRA,J.] determine the compensation at Rs.1,60,000/- even if the deceased has no income which appears to be just and proper. 7. In view of the above, the appellant is directed to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.80,000/- along with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of deposit before the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit is made, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants in the same manner as was directed by the learned Tribunal. On production of the receipt showing payment of awarded amount along with interest as indicated above, the Registrar (Judicial) of this <strong>Court</strong> shall refund the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- along with interest accrued thereon to the appellant Insurance Company. In the result, the appeal fails and dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J. M/S.MAHAVIR AUTO DIAGNOSTIC PVT.LTD.-V- MANOJ AIYER.* DECEMBER 19,2009. 127 PENAL CODE, 1860 (ACT NO.45 OF 1860) – SEC.420. Allegations in complaint petition – Failure on the part of the petitioners to comply with certain promises made to the complainant while purchasing the car in question – Held, mere failure to keep somebody’s promise would not make himself liable for being prosecuted U/s.420 IPC. – Impugned order as well as the proceeding in the complaint case are quashed. (Para 4) Case law Relied on:- AIR 2008 SC 251 : ( Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr.-V- State of Uttaranchal & Ors.). For Petitioner - Mr.S.K.Gajendra, Sr.Counsel & Associates. For Opp.Party – Mr.T.Roy & Associates. *CRLMC NO.1277 OF 2007. In the matter of an application U/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order of cognizance dated 02.02.2007 passed in I.C.C.Case No.206of 2007 by Shri D.Nayak, learned S.D.J.M.,Bhubaneswar. B.P. RAY, J. The petitioners have assailed the order of cognizance taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No. 206 of 2007 on the basis of a complaint filed by the opp.party. Learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 2.2.2007 has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 420/34,IPC and has issued summons to the accused persons for which the petitioners have filed this application u/s. 482, Cr. P.C. 2. The complaint petition filed by the opp.party has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to this petition. From the averments made in the complaint petition it would appear that the complainant had purchased a Skoda car from the petitioners from their Bhubaneswar Show Room on 28.10.2006. It was alleged that while purchasing the said car the petitioners had made certain inducements/promises to the complainant for which the complainant
Page 1 and 2:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4:
SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8:
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10:
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18:
NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26:
39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30:
43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32:
45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34:
“ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36:
49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38:
The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40:
53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42:
55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44:
11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46:
comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48:
61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50:
63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52:
ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 61 and 62: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 63 and 64: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 77 and 78: 91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82: 95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84: 97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88: 101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90: 103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92: 105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94: 107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96: 109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98: 111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102: 115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 105 and 106: 119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108: 121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110: 123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111: 125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 115 and 116: 129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120: 133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122: 135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124: 137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126: 139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130: 143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132: 145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134: 147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136: 149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138: 151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140: 153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144: 157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148: 161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150: 163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152: 165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154: 167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156: 169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157: shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?