Posts

Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019

Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019 On 27th March, 2019, in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi and Another. Etc. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 538-539 of 2019], the Supreme Court primarily examined the “scope, extent and the purpose of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013” and, “in particular, whether the compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 212 of the Act is mandatory or directory.” Having regard to the scheme of the Act underlined in Chapter XIV (Sections 206 to 229 of the Act) dealing with the matters relating to inspection, inquiry and investigation of the companies in juxtaposition with Chapter XXIX which prescribes the punishment/penalties for commission of various offences specified under the Act, the Supreme Court held that the compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 212 of the Act is essentially directory. The Supreme Court observed that “it cannot be said that the prescription of period within which

The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharjee - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019

The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharjee - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019 On 26th March, 2019, in the case of The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharjee & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2614 of 2019], while interpreting an insurance policy envisaging an accident cover, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether death of the insured due to encephalitis malaria occasioned by a mosquito bite in Mozambique, constituted a death due to accident. The Supreme Court observed that “where a disease is caused or transmitted in the natural course of events, it would not be covered by the definition of an accident.” It was held that “in a policy of insurance which covers death due to accident, the peril insured against is an accident: an untoward happening or occurrence which is unforeseen and unexpected in the normal course of human events”, and thus the submission that “being bitten by a mosquito is an unforeseen e

Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarat - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019

Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs State of Gujarat - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019 On 15th March, 2019, in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.508 of 2019], while considering criminal cases pertaining to offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques, allegedly drawn by accused-appellant in favour of the complainant-respondent no.2, the Supreme Court held that “existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant” and “when such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not.” It was held that “in the scheme of the NI Act, mere creation of doubt is not sufficient.” On facts, noticing that “the Trial Court proceeded to pass the orde

S. Sreesanth vs The Board of Control for Cricket in India - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019

S. Sreesanth vs The Board of Control for Cricket in India - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019 On 15th March, 2019, in the case of S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2424 of 2019], where proceedings were drawn by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) against the appellant-cricketer for indulging in spot-fixing during matches of IPL (a professional Twenty20 cricket league), and life ban was imposed upon the appellant for offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI, the Supreme Court held that in the disciplinary proceedings so held “the principles of natural justice were not violated” and the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary committee of the BCCI “cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity which may warrant judicial review by the constitutional courts.” However, the Supreme Court also held that “in cases where offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are prov

M/s Anjaneya Jewellery vs New India Assurance Co Ltd

 M/s Anjaneya Jewellery vs New India Assurance Co Ltd. - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019 On 7th March, 2019, in the case of M/s Anjaneya Jewellery v. New India Assurance Co Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.6878 of 2018], the Supreme Court held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission “does have the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine and decline its admission without notice to the opposite party.” However, it was also held that “such jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine has to be exercised by the Commission having regard to facts of each case, i.e., in appropriate case.”

Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019

Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019 On 7th March, 2019, in the case of Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others [Civil Appeal No.2553 of 2019], the Supreme Court examined questions regarding “scope and applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956”, “and particularly, whether preferential right given to an heir of a Hindu under said Section 22 will be inapplicable if the property in question is an agricultural land.” It was held that “the preferential right given to an heir of a Hindu under Section 22 of the Act is applicable even if the property in question is an agricultural land.” The Supreme Court observed that “when the Parliament thought of conferring the rights of succession in respect of various properties including agricultural holdings, it put a qualification on the right to transfer to an outsider and gave preferential rights to the other heirs with a designed object. Under the Shastrik Law, the interest of

M. R. Krishna Murthi vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019

M. R. Krishna Murthi vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd - Important Supreme Court Judgment 2019 On 5th March, 2019, in the case of M. R. Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others [Civil Appeal No. 2476-77 of 2019], the Supreme Court impressed “upon the Government to also consider the feasibility of enacting Indian Mediation Act to take care of various aspects of mediation in general.” The Supreme Court observed that the Government may examine the feasibility of setting up Motor Accidents Mediation Authority (MAMA) “by making necessary amendments in the Motor Vehicles Act” and “in the interregnum”, directed NALSA “to set up Motor Accident Mediation Cell which can function independently under the aegis of NALSA or can be handed over” to Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC). Further, the Supreme Court reiterated “the directions contained in order dated November 6, 2017 in Jai Prakash case for implementation of the latest Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedu