Insurance Company not liable if the keys of vehicle are left inside the Vehicle

Feb
11
2017


NCDRC (National Commission) in the matter of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd First Appeal no. 1060/2016 decided on 19th January, 2017 has held that Insurance company would not be liable to pay insured amount to the Claimant, where the keys of the vehicles are left inside the ignition socket as this amount to grave negligence on the part of the claimant.




Mandate of arbitrator shall be terminated where parties agree to terminate proceedings

Feb
11
2017


Delhi High Court in a matter titled as Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Deepak Cables (India) Limited; OMP (T)(COMM) 4/2017 decided on 25th January, 2017 held that under  14 (1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996  the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal may be terminated where the parties so agree and the Arbitrator shall terminate arbitral proceedings by or pursuant to an agreement between the parties. The Tribunal is only required to enquire whether, there was an agreement between the parties.




Bar of Section 92 Evidence Act does not operate when the document is sham and not to be acted upon #legalupdates

Jan
11
2017


In a case before the Madras HC, the court relied on judgments by the Apex Court in Gangabai vs. Chhabubai AIR 1982 SC 20 and Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal AIR 2000 SC 426 and held that it is permissible to a party to a deed to contend that the deed was not intended to be acted upon but was only a sham document. The bar of Section 92 Evidence Act arises only when the document is relied upon and its terms are sought to be varied and contradicted.




Judicial interference in commercial matters of the government not warranted unless illegal/irrational #legalupdates

Jan
11
2017


Supreme Court has cautioned that in commercial matters, judicial interference is warranted only when an administrative action of the Government is illegal, irrational or the process through which such action is taken is beyond procedural propriety. A court of law ought to limit itself in only assessing infirmities in “decisions making process” on touchstone of reasonableness and rationality and should ensure that it is not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.




Allegation of fraud without proof does not render a decree fraudulent #legalupdates

Jan
10
2017


When there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it must be inquired into. It is only after evidence is led coupled with intent to deceive that a conclusion of fraud could be arrived at. A mere concealment or non-disclosure without intent to deceive or a bald allegation of fraud without proof and intent to deceive would not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent.




HC does not have the power to punish for contempt of Supreme Court #legalupdates

Jan
10
2017


There is, nothing in Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in Article 215 of Constitution which can be said to empower High Court to initiate proceedings suo-motu or otherwise for contempt of a superior Court like the Supreme Court of India. As a matter of fact, Supreme Court under Article 129 and High Court under Article 215 of Constitution are both declared to be Courts of Record. One of recognised attributes of a Court of record is power to punish for its contempt and contempt of courts subordinate to it. Use of expression "including" in said provisions is explanatory in character.




For an apology to be accepted in contempt proceedings, it should be immediate #indianlaws

Jan
1
2017


Division Bench of Delhi High Court while dealing with a contempt proceedings held that an apology offered in contempt proceedings should be offered clearly and immediately, a belated apology may purge contempt but there is always a risk of it not being accepted. Relying upon a Supreme Court judgement it was held that an apology offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the Court is about to impose punishment, is no apology and can be rejected. Punishment for contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority.




Employer has the independence to decide the eligibility criterion for recruitment #indianlaws

Jan
1
2017


In a case before the Delhi High Court, petitioner was denied appointment on ground that he only had three years diploma in Hotel Management instead of the required graduation degree of a recognized university. The degree required for the recruitment as advertised, was graduation degree.

The Hon’ble Court held that it is privilege of employer to decide the qualifications it wants from a candidate for applying and granting appointment to a post and an employee cannot dictate, that instead of qualifications as prescribed by proposed employer some other qualifications be taken.




Parties to an arbitration agreement are free to decide both procedural and substantive law #indianlaws

Jan
1
2017


Parties (to the contract) in the present case intended to provide for two opportunities at resolving their disputes or differences. First was a settlement by arbitration in India ('arbitration result') and second was by arbitration in London, with intention to treat the second one as an appeal against 'arbitration result' in India. The Apex Court had to decide whether this was permissible under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act




Unilateral withdrawal of consent by a spouse at the time of mutual divorce without any grounds amounts to mental cruelty #indianlaws

Dec
14
2016


The Delhi High Court in an appeal before them has held that unilateral withdrawal of consent by a spouse at the time of mutual divorce without any grounds amounts to mental cruelty. In a case filed by a husband against a trial court's order by which the couple, who got married in March 2004, mutually decided to separate but the husband withdrew his consent at the time of recording of second motion. The trial court allowed the woman's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Challenging the trial court verdict, the husband moved the High court in an appeal.








© 2010-15