Fortnightly Newsletter- August 12, 2018


August 12, 2018


Motor Vehicle Act – SC Discusses Doctrine of Pay and Recover in MV Accident Cases

Case name: Shamanna v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.


In this recent case, the two-Judge Bench elaborated on the Doctrine of Pay and Recover in Motor Vehicle Compensation cases. The Doctrine was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others.

Read more here.  

Section 163A of MV Act- Insurer u/S 163A of MV Act can’t Raise Defence of Negligence of Victim

Case name: Shivaji and Anr. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

In the case, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra reiterated that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act (it provides for payment of compensation on structured formula basis), the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation.

Read more here.

Supreme Court asks if it is a Staged Crime?

Case name: Amar Nath Jha v. Nand Kishore Singh & Anr.

In this recent case, the Supreme Court while pointing out that FIR is not an encyclopedia opined that non-reporting of essential facts, creates suspicion that the crime itself may be staged.

Read more here.

Supreme Court on Misuse of Section 498 A – Vague and Cryptic Allegations can’t Prove Offence

Case name: Sow. Chhaya v. The State of Maharashtra

Supreme Court has come down heavily on misuse of Section 498A – In this recent case, the Supreme Court acquitted the Appellant who was accused of offence under Section 498A of IPC holding that in absence of any definite evidence no offence could be established for the offence of dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC.

Read more here.

Supreme Court of India – Test Identification Parade is not Substantive Evidence

Case name: Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar

Supreme Court of IndiaRules that Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence. – In this recent case, the two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court elaborately deliberated on the evidentiary value of Test Identification Parade in Criminal cases, to hold that Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence.

Read more here.

SC: Conviction u/NDPS Act can’t be Established Only on Basis of Co-Accused’s Confession

Case name: Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Office Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

In this case, the Appellant was convicted by the High Court under the NDPS Act on the basis of confession of co-accused in drug trafficking case. The Supreme Court however reversed the High Court’s verdict holding that the Appellant could not be convicted solely on the basis of confession made by the co-accused.

Read more here.


Cruelty under Section 498A IPC- Asking Wife to Cook Properly is not Ill-Treatment

Case name: The State of Maharashtra v.  Vijay Dhondiram Shinde

In this recent case, the High Court opined that merely asking wife to cook properly does not amount to ill-treatment punishable for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.

Read more here.

Grant of Bail- Accused not entitled to Bail if he had a Prominent Role in the Offence

Case name: K.A. Najeeb v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kochi

In this case, the High Court of Kerala noted that the accused Petitioner had played a prominent role in commission of an offence and hence was not entitled to grant of bail.

Read more here.

Illegal termination – Reinstatement is not an Automatic Relief for Illegal termination – Delhi HC

Case name: Radha v. Food and Civil Supplies Department

Illegal termination – In this recent case, the Delhi High Court has in view of precedents ruled that even if termination of a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act is illegal, reinstatement of the workman is not an automatic relief and will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court in the case also drew a distinction between consequential relief available to a regular employee and a daily wager.

Read more here.  

Perjury- In case of Perjury Court can Invoke Contempt Jurisdiction

Case name: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Mr. Omi and Anr.

In this case, the Delhi High Court ruled on two important points. Firstly, in case of Perjury, the Court can invoke jurisdiction and Secondly, Local Commissioner’s report can form the basis of an action of contempt against the contemnor. 

Read more here.

Compassionate Appointment- Appointment can’t be Rejected on Discovery of New Facts

Case name: Budhu Oraon v. Central Coalfields Limited

An interesting issue fell for consideration before the High Court, whereby the Court was confronted with the issue whether compassionate appointment could be rejected on discovery of new facts in subsequent proceedings.

Read more here.

Maternity Leave- Rule Denying Maternity Leave for Third Child held Unconstitutional

Case name: Smt. Urmla Masih v. State of Uttarakhand & another

In this case, the High Court of Uttrakhand made a remarkable judgment by holding that denying maternity leave to a female employee on the ground of having third child is unconstitutional.

Read more here.

Arbitration Act – Principles of CPC can be Looked for Guidance in Arbitration Matters

Case name: Mahmood v. State of Uttarakhand & others

Arbitration Act – In the case, the High Court primarily opined that the principles of Code of Civil Procedure can be looked into for deciding cases under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Read more here.

Loan Repayment – Court can’t Compel Bank to Agree Repayment of Loan in Installments

Case name: Prajeesh C P V. Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Limited

In a recent case, the High Court of Kerala has held that the expansive jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not go to the extent of interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, so as to compel the respondent Bank to agree for repayment of loan in instalments.

Read more here.

No Alimony – Calcutta HC Denies Permanent Alimony to Wife Living in Adultery

In a recent case, the issue that fell for consideration before the Court was whether a wife who was living in adultery or was unchaste could be granted permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  (providing for permanent alimony and maintenance)?

Read more here.

Cheque Bounce-No Offence of Cheque Bounce in absence of Legally Recoverable Debt

Case name: R Parimala Bai v. Bhaskar Narasimhaiah

In a recent cheque bounce case, the Karnataka High Court quashed the case and stated that If the complainant himself does not plead the existence of legally recoverable debt, then there is no question of raising any initial presumption in favour of the complainant.

Read more here.

Inter-State Transfer can’t be Allowed while Disciplinary Proceedings are Pending

Case name: P. Ramesh Babu v. State of Telangana

In this case, the High Court of Hyderabad has held that an employer cannot be compelled to transfer an Employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending.

Read more here.


CCI: Individual Consumer Dispute can’t be Treated as Competition Concern

Case name: Shri Rajendra Agarwal v. Shoppers Stop Limited

In this recent case, taken up by the Competition watchdog –  The Competition Commission of India has reiterated that an individual consumer dispute cannot be treated as a competition concern under the Competition Act. The Commission also clarified the scope of the Competition Act i.e. to curb the anti-competitive practices.

Read more here.

NCLAT: I&B Code Prevails over SARFAESI Act

Case name: Canara Bank v. Sri Chandramoulishvar Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

In the case, the NCLAT while referring to Supreme Court’s verdict in Innoventive case has ruled that when two proceedings are initiated, one under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) and the other under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, then the proceeding under the I&B code shall prevail.

Read more here.