Legal News & Views

The Supreme Court faced with conflicting views of the different Benches of varying strength on the issue of anticipatory bail, in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.7281­7282/2017 Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi), had referred the following questions are referred for consideration by a larger Bench: (1) Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail. (2) Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court. A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court the confusion. Reiterating the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Court back in 1980 in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab (Sibbia case), the Supreme Court has clarified: There is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to indicate that the grant of pre-arrest/a...

In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v M/s J K Cement Works Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 7402/2009, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the insurer against the order of the NCDRC allowing the claim of the respondent. The respondent had purchased a Standard Fire and Peril Insurance Coverage from the appellant, which covered, among other things, damages due to "flood and inundation". Due to heavy rains, the coal stocked by the respondent got washed away. The appellant repudiated the claim in respect of that damage by saying that the damage due to heavy rains was not covered under 'flood and inundation'. The insurer argued that ''flood' refers to overflowing of water bodies such as rivers, ponds, lakes etc. With respect to the term 'inundation', the company argued that the same refers to 'accumulation of water' and could thus not be applied to the instant case as the coal had merely been washed off due to heavy rains. Rejecting ...

In Civil Appeal No.4242/2019, Maharashtra Seamless Ltd v Padmanabhan Venkatesh, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against order of NCLAT by which the Resolution Applicant (MSL) was directed to modify the resolution plan on the ground that it was below the liquidation value of the corporate debtor and that the operational creditors were not treated at par with the financial creditors. Rejecting the order of the NCLAT, the Supreme Court held that there is no provision in the Code or Regulations under which the bid of any Resolution Applicant has to match liquidation value arrived at in the manner provided in Clause 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The object behind prescribing such valuation process is to assist the CoC to take decision on a resolution plan properly. Once, a resolution plan is approved by the CoC, the statutory mandate on the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31...

In CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 242­243 OF 2020, National Insurance Company Limited vs Birender, one of the principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act ? The Supreme Court referring to judgment of the court in Manjuri Bera (Smt) v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., observed that the legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. Liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. Further, the court held that while adverting to the provisions of Section 140...

In CIVIL APPEAL No.79 OF 2020, MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by parents of the deceased-accident victim against the order of the High Court reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Supreme Court observed that the victim was one of the 2 pillion riders on a motor cycle and he was thrown off the vehicle when a car hit the motor cycle from behind. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. This finding was confirmed by the High Court, though with a rider that the victim was also guilty of contributory negligence, in as much as there were 3 persons on the motor cycle at the time of the accident, requiring a reduction of 10% of the compensation awarded. It is seen from the material on record that the accident occurred at about 2:00 a.m. on 5.09.2008. Therefore, there was no possibility of heavy traffic on ...

In Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2020, M/S. PAWAN HANS LIMITED vs AVIATION KARMACHARI SANGHATANA, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the contractual employees of the Appellant­Company are entitled to provident fund benefits under the Pawan Hans Employees Provident Fund Trust Regulations or under the Employees’Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 framed thereunder. The members of the Respondent -Union had made several representations to the company to extend the benefit of the PF Trust Regulations since they were directly engaged by the Company on contractual basis, some of whom were working for almost 20 years. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Company, the Respondent­-Trade Union approached the High Court. The High Court directed a liberal view must be taken in extending social security benefits to the contractual employees and that the benefits under the EPF Act be extended to the members of the...

In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.56 OF 2020, K. JAGADISH vs UDAYA KUMAR G.S., appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the Karnataka High Court. In the complaint filed before the High Court, the appellant alleged that The crux of the complaint was that he was coerced to enter into a transaction by the accused. It was alleged that, no consideration was paid but three post-dated cheques aggregating to Rs.49.38 lakhs were handed over to the complainant and he was threatened that he must encash the cheques. Under such threat and coercion and since he was under surveillance, he deposited the first cheque amounting to Rs.15 lakhs on 12.07.2016 which was accordingly encashed and credited to his account. The first of the other two cheques was due on 15.07.2016 which the appellant never deposited and on 17.07.2017 initiated the criminal proceedings submitting that he was coerced to enter into the transaction, as stated above. The second and third cheques were thus never ...