Tag: Legal Interpretation

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shifts Liability Back to Insurance Company in Landmark Motor Accident Case

This Supreme Court judgment holds that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an insurer is liable to indemnify claims for the owner of goods or his authorized representative traveling in a goods vehicle. Furthermore, the registered owner remains liable for compensation until a transfer is formally reported to the Registering Authority under Section 50, and the insurer cannot avoid its liability based on unsubstantiated assertions. Facts Of The Case: A motor accident involving a goods vehicle resulted in several claims for death and injury. The injured and deceased were petty hawkers, such as a fish monger and a vegetable vendor, who were accompanying their goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The insurance company contested its liability on two primary gro...
Read More
Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...
Read More
Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board

The Supreme Court held that the electricity board was estopped from resiling from its contractual obligation to provide a concessional tariff after having sanctioned, agreed, and partially implemented it. The board's unilateral withdrawal of the concession after over two years was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an existing industrial unit with a Low Tension (LT) power connection, underwent significant expansion by installing a large induction furnace, which necessitated a High Tension (HT) or bulk power supply. It applied for this new connection in 1998. The respondent electricity board, after inspection, sanctioned the HT connection via a memo that explicitly stipulated the appellant’s eligibility for a 25% concessional tarif...
Read More
When a Society Becomes a “Trust”: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Mismanagement in Charitable NGOs
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When a Society Becomes a “Trust”: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Mismanagement in Charitable NGOs

The Supreme Court ruled that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can be construed as a constructive trust under Section 92 CPC if it is created for public charitable purposes and its properties are held in a fiduciary capacity. This allows aggrieved parties to sue for breach of trust and seek remedies like a scheme for administration. Facts Of The Case: In 2005, Operation ASHA, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was established to provide healthcare services, particularly tuberculosis treatment, to underprivileged sections of society. A dispute arose in 2020 when its co-founder and CEO, Sandeep Ahuja (Respondent No. 3), terminated the services of another co-founder, Dr. Shelly Batra (Respondent No. 1), alleging misrepresentation ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims

The Supreme Court held that the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC includes the right to prosecute it. Consequently, upon the death of the original appellant-victim, their legal heir is entitled to be substituted to continue the appeal. The definition of ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC is broad and inclusive, enabling such substitution to ensure the right of access to justice is not defeated. Facts Of The Case: On December 9, 1992, an attack occurred in which Virendra Singh was killed, and informant Tara Chand (PW-1) and his son Khem Singh (PW-3) were injured. The Sessions Court convicted accused Ashok, Pramod, and Anil @ Neelu, sentencing them to life imprisonment, but acquitted six other accused. The convicted accused appealed to the High Court, which, vi...
Read More
Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC

The Supreme Court held that entries in a company’s balance sheet, when read in the context of surrounding circumstances and previous financial statements, can constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC. The Court clarified that the exclusion period under its COVID-19 limitation order applied from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, making the application timely. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., extended a term loan of ₹30 crores to the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., on 27.02.2015, secured by a pledge of shares. The respondent's account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.03.2018. The appellant fi...
Read More
Supreme Court: Jail Overcrowding Can’t Be a Ground for Granting Bail in Heinous Crimes
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Jail Overcrowding Can’t Be a Ground for Granting Bail in Heinous Crimes

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail without properly considering the absence of "new circumstances" as mandated by the Court's earlier judgment cancelling bail. The impugned order lacked cogent reasoning, relied on irrelevant factors like jail overcrowding, and failed to accord due deference to the Supreme Court's previous decision, warranting its quashing. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the informant, Ajwar, against an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused, Waseem. Waseem was charged under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 (murder). His bail was initially granted by the High Court in 2022 but was cancelled by the Supreme Court. A subsequent grant of bail by the High Court was again cancelled by th...
Read More
Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties
23Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but modified the sentence. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, it held that the enhanced punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, introduced by the 2019 amendment, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed prior to its enactment. Facts Of The Case: On May 20, 2019, the appellant, Saturam Mandavi, was accused of luring a five-year-old girl to his house and raping her while her parents were away attending a marriage ceremony in the village. The victim's mother, upon returning and being unable to locate her daughter, confronted the appellant at his house, after which he fled. An FIR was subsequently registered against him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S...
Read More
Supreme Court : Key NDPS Ruling Courts Can Impose Harsher Sentences Without Specific Reasons
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Key NDPS Ruling Courts Can Impose Harsher Sentences Without Specific Reasons

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 32-B of the NDPS Act, ruling that courts are not restricted to the factors listed in clauses (a) to (f) for imposing sentences higher than the minimum. The judgment affirmed that judicial discretion allows consideration of additional relevant factors, such as the quantity of contraband, to justify enhanced punishment. It overturned the High Court’s erroneous view that special reasons under Section 32-B were mandatory for exceeding the minimum sentence. The decision reinforces that sentencing flexibility under the NDPS Act remains broad, subject only to reasonableness and relevance of the factors considered. Facts Of The Case: In September 2018, the police in Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, received information that Narayan Das and anothe...
Read More