Supreme Court Monthly Digest: November 2021 [Citation: LL 2021 SC 617 To LL 2021 SC 695]

1. Insurance Claim Liable To Be Rejected If Premium Was Not Paid On Due Date[Case: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sunita; Citation: LL 2021 SC 617]The 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 the 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 accident claim of complainant's husband was refused by LIC stating that his said policy had already lapsed on account of non-payment of the due premium. The court observed that the Accident benefit could have been claimed and availed of only if the accident had taken place subsequent to the renewal of the policy.2. PC Act - More Time Taken For Preliminary Enquiry Not A Ground To Quash Criminal Proceedings[Case: The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Dr Saleem ur Rehman; Citation: LL 2021 SC 618]The Supreme Court 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.Also Read: Prior Sanction Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Investigating Non-Cognizable Offence Along With Cognizable Offence3. Taluk Land Board's Determination Has Evidentiary Value In Proceedings Under Kerala Private Forest Vesting Act[Case: State Of Kerala & Anr. v. M/S Popular Estates; Citation: LL 2021 SC 619]The Supreme Court observed that determination arrived by the Land Board about the character of lands, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 becomes a piece of evidence for the purposes of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. 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 Estates. It thus opined that "the enunciation of the principle that "unless a contrary state of affairs" were shown to exist, the Board's order "would have to be given due weight" had to apply, and was correctly invoked by the High Court."Also Read: Article 136 Interference Not Called For Merely Because A Different View About High Court's Judgment Is Possible4. Mere Apprehension Of Threat Of life Without Substantiating It Not Sufficient Ground To Transfer A Criminal Case U/Sec 406 CrPC[Case: Dinesh Mahajan v. Vishal Mahajan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 620]The Supreme Court observed that mere apprehension of threat of life is not a sufficient ground to transfer a case, without lodging a complaint or substantiating the said ground. In this case, the petition sought transfer of Complaint filed under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. "No complaint has been lodged by the petitioner to the authorities concerned or before any Court. Mere apprehension of threat of life is not a sufficient ground to transfer a case, without lodging a complaint or substantiating the said ground.", the court noted. 5. Principle Of Preferential Candidates Applies When There Is A Tie With A General Candidate[Case: Chairman, TANGEDCO v. Priyadaarshini; Citation: LL 2021 SC 621]The Supreme Court observed that the principle of preferential candidates would apply when there is a tie between the preferential candidate and a general candidate and the person who is to be treated as a preferential can be given a mark over a general candidate. Rule 55 of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules read thus: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules for the various State and Subordinate Service, other things being equal, preference shall be given to the Outstanding scouts for appointment to any post by direct recruitment. In this case, the Madras High Court had directed TANGEDCO to consider the claim of a candidate for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the priority category in the post earmarked for...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: November 2021 [Citation: LL 2021 SC 617 To LL 2021 SC 695]

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags