Legal News & Views

In Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITM/A/2017/182415-BJ, Mr. Subramanian K Ansari vs CPIO, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, the applicant Subramanian K Ansari had sought information from the Income Tax Department about the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of last 10 years of the Cambata Aviation Ltd, which had ceased operations in 2016. The applicant alleged that M/s Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd had deprived salary/wages to more than 2100 employees since March, 2016 on the pretext of bad condition of finance and loss in the business resulting in extreme financial hardships to him and hundreds of other employees. He further alleged that the said Company was also willfully defaulting in payment of statutory dues of PF/ST/LIC/ESIC and Credit Society, etc. Despite citing financial difficulties, the company had recruited more than 800 employees in 2014 and 2015, and in this backdrop the employee wanted to know the truth of its claims. The Public Information Officer denied disclos...

In Civil Appeal No. 4261 of 2019, Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd vs Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the Respondent inter alia, on the ground that there was a non-disclosure of the fact that the insured had held a previous policy in the proposal form filled up by the proposer. The appeal filed by the respondents was, however, allowed by the SCDRC and reaffirmed by the NCDRC. On appeal, the Supreme Court decided that the fundamental principle is that insurance is governed by the doctrine of uberrima fidei. This postulates that there must be complete good faith on the part of the insured. The relationship between an insurer and the insured is recognized as one where mutual obligations of trust and good faith are paramount. In the present case, the insurer had sought information with respect to previous insurance policies obtained by the assured. The duty of full disclosure required that no information of substance or of interes...

In CIVIL APPEAL NO.3944 OF 2019,  LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs MANISH GUPTA, the claim of the insured after Mitral Valve Replacement surgery was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was suffering from a pre-existing illness. In the proposal form the insured had under disclosure of health details and medical information under the column of 'past history', among  which “cardiovascular disease e.g.: Palpitations, heart attack, stroke, chest pain” was included, had replied in the negative. The District Forum held in favour of the respondent. The NCDRC, while affirming the SCDRC, held that though the treating doctor had recorded, under the column of 'past history', that this was a known case of rheumatic heart disease since childhood, the notes did not indicate that it had been recorded on the basis of the information furnished by the patient. The insurer argued before the Supreme Court that the Health-plus policy falls in the NMG cate...

In CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3912 OF 2019, BHARAT WATCH COMPANY vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., the insurer based on the finding of the surveyor repudiated the claim of theft on the ground that the insurance policy excludes claim against theft/burglary without forcible and violent entry to and/or exit from the premises as in the present case. The District as well as the State Forum allowed the claim as the exclusion clause had not been intimated to the insured. On appeal, NCDRC however rejected the claim and allowed the appeal filed by the insurer. The Supreme Court decided that the fact that  there was a contract of insurance is not in dispute and has never been in dispute. The only issue is whether the exclusionary conditions were communicated to the appellant. The District Forum came to a specific finding of fact that the insurer did not furnish the terms and conditions of the exclusion and special conditions to the appellant and hence, they were not binding. When the case travel...

In FIRST APPEAL NO.1839 OF 2018, SBI Insurance Company vs Madhubala & Others, a first appeal filed by SBI Insurance Company against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal wherein the appellants were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 11,93,000 to the family of a carpenter who died in an accident with a bus that was being driven on the wrong side. The owner and driver of the offending bus did not resist the claim petition. The insurer challenged the award only on the ground that because the policies of insurance issued by the insurer of the offending vehicle were cancelled by the Insurance Company after the occurrence of the incident on account of bouncing of the cheques issued towards premium, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company has right to recover the compensation from owner of offending vehicle, paid to the claimants, towards satisfaction of the award passed by the Tribunal....

In CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2007, Popat Bhaginath Kasar vs State of Maharashtra, the appellant as the driver of a tempo ran over a young boy who died at the spot. The trial court convicted the driver under Section 304A & 279 of IPC as well as Section 184 and 183(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On appeal, the lower appellate court only convicted him under Section 304A of IPC and also reduced his sentence. Against this the driver appealing before the Bombay High Court and while admitting the accident, tried to establish that the speed was not very high rather the boy had coming running before the vehicle and driver inspite of best efforts by braking and trying to avoid failed to do so and ran over the boy. The High Court observed that one of witness who was also the passenger had said that while the driver tried to avoid the boy, the vehicle was travelling fast. The court said that while there is no specific yardstick to measure what constitute rash driving, the r...

In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 607-608 /2019, VIJAY GOPALA LOHAR vs PANDURANG RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, the Respondent issued two notices against bounced cheques and as no payment was made even after the receipt of the notices, he filed two complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the noticed, though the amount mentioned was same as the cheques under consideration, there was a reference to the loan amount which had to be returned by the appellant according to the notices. The Trial Court held  that the notices were defective on the ground that the notices mentioned loan amount and not the cheque amount and were therefore contrary to Section 138 of the NI Act. As the High Court on appeal differed with the trial court and convicted the appellant, the said appellant came before the Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that clause(b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act to submit that the demand by the notice should be only for the cheque amount and not for a...