3 Feb 2020 5:56 AM GMT
● Coverage Of 'Flood & Inundation' Insurance Includes Damage Caused By Heavy Rains And Not Just Overflowing Of River [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v M/s J K Cement Works Ltd] The issue before the Court was that whether these words included only damage caused by overflowing of rivers, or they included damages caused by heavy rains as well. To decide the matter, the...
The issue before the Court was that whether these words included only damage caused by overflowing of rivers, or they included damages caused by heavy rains as well. To decide the matter, the Division Bench comprising Justice Mohan M Shanthanagoudar and Justice Subhash Reddy referred to the meanings of these words as defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary. Based on these, the Court held that floods can be broadly divided into the following categories: coastal floods, fluvial floods (river floods), and pluvial floods (surface floods). Pluvial or surface floods refers to the accumulation of water in an area because of excessive rainfall. These floods occur independently of an overflowing water body. "Inundation" was said to be referring to both the act of overflow of water as well as the result of such overflow.
A bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna reserved orders on the plea filed by Mukesh Singh, one of the four death row convicts against the rejection of his mercy plea. With this, the last legal remedy available for the convict against the death sentence has been extinguished. The court held that there was no merit in the contention that no material was placed before the President for decision. The bench added that alleged ill-treatment and cruelty in jail is no ground to grant mercy. Also, that the President has acted expeditiously is no ground to hold that there was non-application of mind, said the Court. The court also held that the quick consideration of the mercy petition and swift rejection of the same cannot be a ground for judicial review of the order passed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution.
A 3-judge bench of the SC led by Justice A M Khanwilkar held that regular inquiry as per the service rules is necessary for the termination of the services of an employee when it is stigmatic and punitive. The Court was dealing with the appeal by Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V, an Associate Professor of Central University of Kerala, whose services were terminated after he was found to have sexually harassed some students. He was on probation then. When complaints of sexual harassment were raised against him by 40 students at various points of time, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted as per the provisions of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (for short, 'the 2015 Regulations').
The Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. But if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so, the five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has held. Justices MR Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat penned separate judgments agreeing with each other. Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran concurred with the conclusion reached by both the judges. The Court also held that life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed but can continue till the end of the trial except in special and peculiar cases.
Rights which the citizens cherish deeply are fundamental- it is not the restrictions that are fundamental, reminded Justice S. Ravindra Bhat while concluding his judgment on the issue whether the Anticipatory Bail Protection should be for a limited period. The Judge reproduced a quote of Joseph Story, the great jurist and US Supreme Court judge: "personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice." He said that arbitrary and groundless arrests continue as a pervasive phenomenon and cautioned against the restriction of power to grant anticipatory bail by judicial interpretation.
A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the curative petitions of Akshay, one of the four convicts awaiting execution of the death penalty in the Nirbhaya gang rape-murder case. The bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, R F Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan did not find any merits in the curative petitions. On January-14 the Supreme Court dismissed the curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, the other two convicts awaiting execution of the death penalty in the Nirbhaya gang rape-murder case.
An SC bench comprising CJI SA Bobde, Justices Surya Kant and BR Gavai has held that claimant in a motor accident compensation case can file cross-objections in an appeal filed by the insurer against the award. The Court set aside a judgment of the Patna High Court which had held such a cross-objection by the claimant to be not maintainable. The insurer's appeal in the instant case was only with respect to not absolving it from liability to pay compensation. Unless the insurer challenges the quantum, the claimants cannot file cross-appeal for enhanced compensation, the HC ruled. This view was held to be unsustainable by the apex court.
The Supreme Court has granted bail to all 17 convicts in the Sardarpura massacre case of 2002 Gujarat riots, where 33 Muslims including 22 women were killed. A bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde, Justices Surya Kant and BR Gavai passed the order on applications for bail filed by the convicts pending disposal of their appeal against the conviction and sentence. Court has further directed that Member Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall produce a certificate before the Court stating therein that the appellants are regularly engaged in any of the aforesaid program/services. The Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall also assist the appellants for obtaining employment in the district of Indore. The Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall submit a report of the compliance of the above conditions and regarding the general conduct of the appellants once in every three months initially.
The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta observed that the procedure prescribed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable in a suit by a Trust. In this case, the Trust known as Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala filed the suit through one Charan Dass. The High Court had held that the suit is not maintainable without complying with the requirements of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah while Interpreting provisions of the Telangana Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, has held that a landlord is not precluded from making an application for determination of fair rent during the currency of agreed rent between the landlord and the tenant. The contention taken in this appeal was that the landlord is bound by the contractual rent and during the subsistence of contractual tenancy he cannot be allowed to file an application for enhancement of rent. It was contended that permitting the landlord to file an application for enhancement of rent even though he is bound by a contract, will be permitting something which is against Rent Control Legislation, which has to be interpreted in a manner so as to save tenant from exorbitant rent.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday has directed the States, which have not yet issued Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas, to issue the same within four weeks. The bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari were considering a PIL filed by the National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice. The court noted that though some States have issued Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas, all the established Gram Nyayalayas are not functioning. In some of the States, the proposals for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas are pending before the High Court for consultation and some of the States have not yet initiated the process of issuing Notifications for establishing such Nyayalayas, the bench observed.
A bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and V Ramasubramanian held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the application for review under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993(RDB Act). The Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, including the provision to condone delay under Section 5 of it, apply only to original applications filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act and not to review applications.
The bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha has reiterated that merely because the report contemplated under Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was not sent within two days of the arrest of the accused, the entire proceedings will not be vitiated. The bench referred to the judgment in Sajan Abraham vs. State of Kerala, wherein it was held that non-compliance of Section 57 would not vitiate the prosecution case.
The bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that there is no obligation on the airlines to escort every passenger after issuing him/her a boarding pass at the check-in counter until he/she reaches the boarding gate. Indigo Airlines had approached the Apex Court against Consumer Commission's decision to pay compensation to two passengers who missed their flight to Agartala. The bench observed that it is the primary obligation of the passenger, who has been issued a boarding pass to undergo the security check procedure and reach the boarding gate well before (at least 25 minutes before) the scheduled departure time.