Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: May 16- May 22,2022

Supreme Court Judgements Remission/Premature Release Policy Of The State Where The Crime Was Committed Has To Considered: Supreme Court Case Title: Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat | WP(C) 135 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484 The Supreme Court observed that the remission or premature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed has to be considered. The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath observed that the appropriate Government under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments. Owners Of Maradu Flats Demolished For CRZ Violations Not Entitled To Interest On Refund From Builders: Supreme Court Case : Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority versus Maradu Municipality and others Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 485 The Supreme Court has held that the owners of the flats in the four buildings in Maradu, Kochi, which were demolished in 2020 for CRZ violations, are not entitled to interest on the refund payable to them by the builders. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled so on the reasoning that the purchasers had been staying in the flats allotted to them for a period of 8-9 years on an average and that they still have undivided share in the land, the market value of which has increased substantially. The bench also observed that the flats that were taken possession of in the years between 2009-2013 would have depreciated in value. "Will Create Chaos & Uncertainty": Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone NEET PG 2022 Exam Case Title: Dr R Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee| WP(C) 341 of 2022 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486 The Supreme Court dismissed pleas to postpone NEET-PG 2022 scheduled for May 21, saying postponement will create chaos and uncertainty and will impact patient care and will cause prejudice to over 2 lakh students who have prepared. Double Insurance : Second Insurer Can Decline Claim When Loss Has Been Fully Indemnified By Other Insurer - Supreme Court Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 2955 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 487 The Supreme Court, recently, held that in cases of overlapping insurance policies, when the defined loss of the insured is fully indemnified by one insurer, the second insurer is not liable for the claim towards the same incident. "A contract of insurance is and always continues to be one for indemnity of the defined loss, no more no less. In the case of specific risks, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc., the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance." A Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha allowed appeal assailing the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 1.78 crores towards the claim raised by the insured. Section 482 CrPC - Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed Merely On The Ground That "No Useful Purpose Will Be Served" : Supreme Court Case Title: Satish Kumar Jatav vs State of UP | CrA 770 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488 The Supreme Court observed that when a clear case is made out for the offences alleged, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case". The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna reiterated that a High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order while disposing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 304A IPC -'Res Ipsa Loquitur' Stricto Sensu Does Not Apply ; Nexus Between Accused's Negligence & Victim's Death Has To Be Established : Supreme Court Case Title: Nanjundappa vs State of Karnataka | CrA 900 OF 2017 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489 The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case. "For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.", the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed while acquitting two persons accused under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence. AoRs Should Make Endorsement That They Are Satisfied About Due Execution Of Vakalatnama Which Was Not Signed In Their Presence : Supreme Court Case Title: Suresh Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490 The Supreme Court observed that Advocates On Record have...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: May 16- May 22,2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags