Legal News & Views

In BELI RAM vs RAJINDER KUMAR & ANR., the sole question of law for consideration before the Supreme Court in the appeals was whether in case of a valid driving licence, if the licence has expired, the insured is absolved of its liability. The driver of a commercial vehicle met with an accident resulting in 20% permanent disability. The first respondent herein filed a petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 impleading the appellant and second respondent herein – the insurance company which had insured the vehicle. These proceedings resulted in an award by the Commissioner on 8.12.2004 granting Rs. 94,464/- for the injuries suffered and Rs.67,313/- towards medical expenses of the first respondent. The amounts awarded were to carry interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. The compensation amount was mulled on to the second respondent as insurer, while the interest was directed to be paid by the appellant herei...

In ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sidhavandan Enterprises, appeal was filed before the INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL by the revenue department against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A). The Assessee is a company and filed return of income showing loss of Rs.35,53,560. The Assessing Officer, (AO) noted that, in assessment year under appeal, the Assessee Company has received an amount of unsecured loan of Rs.2 crores from Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., The AO noted back ground of the case with regard to bogus accommodation entry provided by various entities controlled by S.K. Jain and V.K. Jain and Investigation conducted by Investigation Wing of the Department. The AO has given an opportunity to the Assessee to prove creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction and required the Assessee to produce Director Director of Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd., and C.A. who has arranged the funds in the matter. However, both the above persons were not produced...

 In The New India Assurance Company vs. Somwati, appeals were filed by three Insurance Companies, i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. questioning the judgments of the High Courts arising out of the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) with regard to the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants under two heads, i.e., “Loss of Consortium” and “loss of love and affection.” The only issue to be considered was with regard to award of compensation to the claimant under two heads, i.e., (a)loss of consortium and (b) loss of love and affection. With regard to ‘consortium’, the question was as to whether it is only the wife who is entitled for consortium or the consortium can be awarded to children and parents also. The appellants contended that the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has laid ...

In M/S. PYARIDEVI CHABIRAJ STEELS PVT. LTD. vs  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., complaint was filed before the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) against claim repudiated by the insurance provider. At the onset, the NCDRC observed that a preliminary point arises as to how this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before the NCDRC because the value of the consideration paid in the present case i.e. premium paid for taking the Insurance Policies was only Rs.3,20,525/- and Rs.1,23,037/- the total of which comes to Rs.4,43,562/- (Rupees Four Lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores) as provided under Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019. The complainant had argued that though the above section restrict the consideration to Rs. 10 crores, but in the case of an insurance policy, a liberal view should be taken and the compensation sought or the insured amo...

In SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. vs SURINDER SINGH, the appellant was a landlord of a shop measuring 14 sq. yds. Respondent took the shop on rent @Rs.2,000/- per month for running a hair cutting and dressing work. The respondent-tenant on 27.07.1993 executed an agreement/rent deed undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- each month. The rent deed was to be applicable w.e.f. 28.07.1993. The house tax and electricity bills were undertaken to be paid by the tenant. Rent was to be paid up to 5th day in each month to the owner. In event, the tenant failed to make the payment of rent up to the prescribed date in advance, the owner shall have right to get the shop vacated. The shop owner, if is in need of the shop, can serve notice of one month and get the shop vacated from the tenant. The tenant also undertook to make the payment of rent money by increasing 10 per cent each year. Subsequently, the appellant/landlord filed application before the Rent Controller praying for eviction of the...

 In BHAGWAT SHARAN vs PURUSHOTTAM & ORS., one of the issues before the Supreme Court was whether the disputed properties mentioned are the properties of the joint family both the sides or whether the same are the self acquired properties as per the averments made by the defendants? The Supreme Court observed that the law is thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgments of this Court in Bhagwan Dayal vs. Reoti Devi. In this case this Court held that the general principle is that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. It was further held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it was also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because o...

 In TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED vs M/S. SRIGDHAA BEVERAGES, a property was sold through E-Auction on 'as is where is, what is there is and without any recourse basis' and the auction notice listed electricity dues among the encumbrances on the property. Sale was done and after all formalities were completed when the new buyer applied for a connection to run the plant, the said application was denied by the Power Generation Company on the ground that there were previous electricity dues to the tune of Rs.50,47,715, as on 26.10.2017. Appellant No.1 asserted its right to recover this amount even from the new purchaser (i.e. respondent), based on a reading of Clauses 5.9.6 and 8.4 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution & Retail Supply Licensees in AP.  The buyer filed a writ petition before the AP High Cour seeking quashing of these demands arguing that as a subsequent purchaser. The High Court referring to judgments of th...