Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: Nov 1 To Nov 7, 2021

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS1. Insurance Claim Liable To Be Rejected If Premium Was Not Paid On Due Date : Supreme CourtCase name: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sunita Citation: LL 2021 SC 617The Supreme Court observed that it is not permissible to rewrite the contract while interpreting the terms of the Insurance Policy.The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi said that the terms of insurance policy have to be strictly construed. In a contract of insurance there is a requirement of Uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the assured, the court said.The court further observed thus, by referring to Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599:From the afore-stated legal position, it is clear that the terms of insurance policy have to be strictly construed, and it is not permissible to rewrite the contract while interpreting the terms of the Policy. In the instant case, condition no. 11 of the Policy clearly stipulated that the policy has to be in force when the accident takes place2. Offender Who Had Not Used Deadly Weapon During Robbery Cannot Be Convicted Under Section 397 IPC: Supreme CourtCase name : Ganesan vs State Citation: LL 2021 SC 614The Supreme Court has observed that an offender who had not used any deadly weapon at the time of committing robbery/dacoity cannot be convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.The use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery/dacoity cannot attract Section 397 IPC for the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who has not used any deadly weapon.In this case, the appellants -accused were convicted under Section 397 IPC which reads thus: If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. Before the Apex Court, it was contended that the allegation of use of any weapon was against the other accused only and thus in absence of any allegations of use of any deadly weapon by the appellants, Section 397 IPC is not attracted.3. Waqf Tribunal Has Jurisdiction Even If Subject Property Is Admitted To Be A Waqf Property: Supreme CourtCase name: Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid PindariCitation: LL 2021 SC 604The Supreme Court has held that a Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute even if a property is admitted to be a waqf property."To say that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction only if the subject property is disputed to be a waqf property and not if it is admitted to be a waqf property, is indigestible in the teeth of Section 83(1)", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.This judgment, to an extent, settles the conundrum that followed a 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court and the amendment of the Waqf Act in 2013.4. PC Act - More Time Taken For Preliminary Enquiry Not A Ground To Quash Criminal Proceedings : Supreme CourtCase Title: The State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Dr Saleem ur Rehman| Criminal Appeal No. 1170 of 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 618The Supreme Court has observed that whatever enquiry is conducted at the stage of Preliminary Enquiry, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as investigation under the code of criminal procedure which can only be after registration of the FIR.The Court also observed that merely because some time is taken for conducting preliminary enquiry, that cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna was considering an appeal against the High Court's judgement in which the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction quashed the criminal proceedings and declared Rule 3.16 of the Vigilance Manual, 2008 dealing with the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) as ultra vires, being in direct conflict with the Top Court's judgement in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.5. Taluk Land Board's Determination Has Evidentiary Value In Proceedings Under Kerala Private Forest Vesting Act : Supreme CourtCase Title: State Of Kerala & Anr. V. M/S Popular Estates (Now Dissolved) & Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 903 Of 2011Citation: LL 2021 SC 619The Supreme Court has observed that determination arrived by the Land Board about the character of lands, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ("KLR Act") becomes a piece of evidence for the purposes of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 ("Vesting Act").The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and S Ravindra Bhat in the present matter was dealing with a special leave petition assailing Kerala High Court's order by which the Court held that an area of slightly over 402 acres vested in the State of Kerala and the rest of the land of a total of 1534.40 acres had to be treated as plantation and thus belonged to Popular...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: Nov 1 To Nov 7, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags