Legal News & Views

Citation : Anju Kalsi vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and Another, Civil Appeal Nos 1544-1545 of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order :  February 21, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud & Surya Kant, J. Background The appellant’s son obtained the benefit of an insurance cover under a policy called the “Cardsure Package Policy”. The appellant’s son was an account holder with HDFC Bank Limited and had availed of a debit card from the bank. The bank, which is the second respondent, obtained an insurance cover on 3 September 2013 from the first respondent. The insurance cover was to commence from 25 August 2013 and was to end on 24 August 2014. Against the payment of premium by the bank to the insurer, the insurer provided an insurance cover for card holders of the bank. The insurance cover had 2 special conditions subject to which the insurance claim would be accepted. The appellant’s son died in a road accident on 30 October 2013

Citation : Harminder Singh Vs Surjit Kaur, Civil Appeal  No.89 Of 2012 Date of Judgment/Order : 27th April, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : Hemant Gupta & V. Ramasubramanian. J. Background One Gulab Singh – mortgaged his share of land in favour of Rajinder Singh on 02.05.1921 with possession. The defendants inherited the estate of Gulab Singh whereas Rajinder Singh - mortgagee died issueless and his rights were inherited by his wife – Rajinder Kaur. Rajinder Kaur sold her mortgagee rights to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 18.06.1979. Since the mortgage was not redeemed by the mortgagor within a period of 30 years, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she had become the owner after the extinguishment of the mortgage rights and for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Such decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as well but in Second Appeal, the suit was dismissed relying upon the judgment of this Court in ‘Sa

Citation : Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri & Ors. Vs Dr. M.a. Methusethupathi & Ors., Civil Appeal No(S).6507 Of 2009 Date of Judgment/Order : April 20, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : Ajay Rastogi & Abhay S. Oka, J. Background Was filed against the order of the NCDRC, dismissing the allegation of the appellants that the death of her husband was due to post operative medical negligence and follow-up care. Judgment Dismissing the appeal the Supreme Court observed that in a recent judgment in Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh and Others , this Court held that the hospital and doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patients in all circumstances. However, in an unfortunate case death may occur. It will be necessary that sufficient material on medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at a conclusion that the death is due to medical negligence. Even death of a patient cannot, on the

Citation : Gaurav @ Gaura vs State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 13747 Of 2021 Date of Judgment/Order : 5.1.2022 Court/Tribunal : Allahabad High Court Corum : Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. Background Bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0583 of 2020, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 at Police Station Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar. The Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the application on the ground that applicant has criminal history of 48 cases and most of them have been lodged before filing of the said complaint against the police officials. He further submits that criminal antecedent of the accused is to be seen while granting the bail. Their relevance cannot be totally ignored. The applicant submits that applicant has already been acquitted in five criminal cases whereas the prosecution in 17 has already came to an end. It is also submitted that the

Citation : Thaniyulla Parambath Jahafar vs Relax Zone Tourism Private Limited, CP/24/KOB/2021 Date of Judgment/Order : 17th January, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (Judicial) & Hon’ble Mr. Shyam Babu Gautam, Member (Technical) Background The Petitioner is one of the directors of the Respondent No. 1 which was originally formed by 5 friends and basic features of the Respondent Company was that all the shareholders had equal shareholding and all the shareholders were participating in Management as directors. The Petitioner was removed from the board as a director through an EGM and resolution which was passed by majority. Petition was filed under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act 2013, against the removal claiming the removal to be be oppressive and prejudicial to the interests of the company. Judgment The NCLT while holding the removal of the Petitioner not an oppressive act, reiterated  the judgm

Citation : Mukul Agarwal, Ex-Director, Greatech Telecom Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs Royale Resinex Pvt. Ltd. & Others Date of Judgment/Order : 30th March, 2022 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi Corum : Ashok Bhushan, J. Background Appeal was filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor aggrieved by the judgment of the NCLT, Delhi admitting an Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Respondent No. 1 as an Operational Creditor. One of the objections raised by Appellant was that the Application under Section 9 of the Code was filed by the Operational Creditor on the basis of Decree of the Civil Court dated 08.09.2016. The Application filed on the basis of Decree of Civil Court cannot be said to be an Application for an ‘operational debt’. The Respondent was not an Operational Creditor and no ‘operational debt’ being due on the Corporate Debtor, hence, the Application under Section

Citation : Sunil Kumar Jain and others Versus Sundaresh Bhatt and others, Civil Appeal No. 5910 Of 2019 Date of Judgment/Order : April 19, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : M.R. Shah; Aniruddha Bose; JJ. Background The Corporate Debtor was a private sector Ship Building Yard with its manufacturing activities at Dahej Yard and Surat Yard in Gujarat and having its corporate office at Mumbai. That prior to the initiation of CIRP, the Corporate Debtor had 562 workmen and 93 employees at Dahej; 291 workmen and 99 employees at Surat and 101 employees at its Mumbai Head Office. The appellants herein are the 272 employees and workmen employed at Mumbai Head Office and Dahej Yard of the Corporate Debtor. None of the 201 employees and workmen at Surat Yard are the appellants herein. CIRP was initiated against the company and an application was filed before the Adjudicating Authority, praying inter alia to direct the Resolution Professional to make payment to the employees

Citation : Sri Subhankar Bhowmik vs Union of India and Anr., WP(C)(PIL) No.04/2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2022 Court/Tribunal : High Court Of Tripura (Subsequently reafirmed by the Supreme Court on 11-04-2022 vide Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No.6104/2022) Corum : Indrajit Mahanty, CJ. Background Writ was filed by the Petitioner declaring that claims filed under a CIRP by "decree holder" under Regulation 9(a) of the CIRP Regulations, be considered at par with claims filed by ''financial creditors" and be amenable to all consequential rights available to financial creditors. The Petitioner stated that the IBC and / or the Regulations framed thereunder, do not prescribe the class of creditors to which the term "decree holder" belongs, and therefore there exists a need to iron out the creases by this Hon’ble Court. It is suggested that without such prescription in the IBC, the class of "decree holders” falls into the residual cl

Citation           : Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No. 6044 Of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 7149 Of 2019 Date of Judgment/Order           : April 07, 2022 Court/Tribunal : Supreme Court Of India Corum : Uday Umesh Lalit; J, S. Ravindra Bhat; J, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J. Background Appeal was filed Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19861, arise out of the judgment dated 19.06.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission directed the Appellant-Developer to refund an amount of Rs. 2,06,41,379 with interest @ 9% p.a. to the Respondent-Consumer for its failure to deliver possession of the apartment within the time stipulated as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement. One of the questions raised by the Appellant was whether the Commission has the power under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct refund of the amount deposited by the Consumer with interest? Consumer, having elected to

Citation : Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased), Civil Appeal No. 1382 Of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : March 03, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum: M.R. Shah, J. Background The dispute is with respect to the land bearing Revenue Survey No.49 ad-measuring 6 acres and 15 gunthas situated at the village Mahadeviya, District Deesa. The husband of the original plaintiff had executed a Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 in favour of the appellant herein (original defendant) by which he sold his agricultural land in question. On the basis of the sale deed, the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated in the Revenue record in the year 1976 itself. In the year 1999, the husband of the original plaintiff, who executed the registered sale deed died. That after a period of approximately 22 years, respondent No.1 herein (original plaintiff) filed a suit for cancellation of the registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 and for a declaration that the register