5 Important Supreme Court Judgments January 30, 2019

1. Sumit Kumar Saha v. Reliance General Insurance

Insurance Law - Except in cases where the agreement on part of the Insurance Company is brought about by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation or cases where principle of uberrima fide is attracted, the parties are bound by stipulation of a particular figure as sum insured. Therefore, the surveyor and the Insurance Company were not justified in any way in questioning and disregarding the amount of “sum insured”. Further depreciation, if any, can always be computed keeping the figure of “sum insured” in mind. The starting figure, therefore, in this case had to be the figure which was stipulated as “sum insured”.

If the sum insured is, in any way, lesser than the real value of the subject matter of insurance, and if there be cases of partial replacement or partial loss, it is well accepted that the Insurance Company is entitled to proportionate deduction representing the proportion of undervaluation.

If both the sides, with their eyes open, had arrived at a particular figure to be the real value of the subject matter of insurance, is it open to any party to dispute said sum and contend that the real value was something different from what was declared by the parties to be the sum insured. One may understand cases where there is non-disclosure of material facts which may go to the root of the matter and as such the sanctity of the agreement itself may get affected. But if both the parties had agreed and arrived at an understanding, which understanding was otherwise not vitiated by any misrepresentation, fraud or coercion, the parties must be held bound by stipulation of such figure.

It was not open to the Surveyor or to the Insurance Company to disregard the figure stipulated as ‘sum insured’. The loss had to be assessed in the present case, keeping said figure in mind.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 75 : 2019 (2) SCALE 253
Case Number : C.A. No. 1299 of 2019 30-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Subhro Sanyal

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

2. Delhi Dayalbagh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Registrar Cooperative Societies

Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 - Section 74(e), (f), (k), Section 80 and Section 91 Section 131 & 141 - "co-operative housing society" - "dwelling unit" - "occupancy right" - Permission for transfer of occupancy right not to be ordinarily refused and provision for appeal - Saving of existing cooperative societies - Repeal and savings - Discussed.

Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 230
Case Number : C.A. No. 1313 of 2019 30-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Garima Prashad

Respondent's Advocate : Praveen Agrawal

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

3. Delhi Dayal Bagh House Building Society v. Regitrar, Co-operative Societies

Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 251
Case Number : C.A. No. 1316 of 2019 30-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Garima Prashad

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

4. State of Bihar v. Dr. Sachindra Narayan

Anugraha Narayan Sinha Institute of Social Studies Act, 1964 - Sections 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 17 - Anugraha Narayan Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Rules 1966 - Anugraha Narayan Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna Regulation, 1966 - Reg. 9 - Functions of the Board - Payment to Institute - The Institute Fund - Budget - Accounts and audit - Discussed.

Service Law - Pension - Payment of pension in the past will not confer an enforceable right in favour of the Institute or its employees.

The resolution of the Board of the Institute to implement a retirement benefit scheme from its own resources will not bind the State Government to pay the amount of pension to the employees of the Institute. The employees of such Institute cannot be treated at par with the employees of the State Government nor the State can be burdened with the responsibility to pay pension to the employees of the Institute. Consequently, we find that the order of the Division Bench is not legally sustainable. Hence, we allow the appeal and dismiss the Writ Petition. The pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Judicial Review - Legitimate expectation is one of the grounds of judicial review but unless a legal obligation exists, there cannot be any legitimate expectation. The legitimate expectation is not a wish or a desire or a hope, therefore, it cannot be claimed or demanded as a right.

Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 327
Case Number : C.A. No. 884 of 2019 30-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Abha R. Sharma

Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

5. Lakshmi Sugar Mill, Uttaranchal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Essential Commodoties Act, 1955 - S.3 - Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 - Cl. 6 & 11 - Whether the State Government or its authority i.e. the Cane Commissioner can reserve an area within the State to feed the sugarcane requirement of a factory located outside the State - Held, the State Government would be empowered to reserve an area within its boundaries, even though a factory which is to be fed by the sugarcane grown in that area or purchased from that area may be outside the State.

Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 443
Case Number : C.A. No. 5955 of 2005 30-01-2019

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi
For Appellant : Mr. P.N. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Sushmit Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Shrishti Khanna, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Prasht Tyagi, Adv. Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR
For Respondents : Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Anand, AOR Mr. Ankit Singh, Adv. Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR Ms. Susmita Lal, AOR

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog