Adverse possession – A party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JOSEPH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…
Insurance Policy – Mere knowledge on the part of the insurer that there was a breach of warranty would not amount to a waiver in the absence of an express representation to that effect.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HIND OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. IFFCO – TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh,…
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 – Article 77D – Claim for Pay Protection – High Court was erroneous when it came to the conclusion that the appellant was not appointed on a substantive basis and, therefore, she does not satisfy the criteria laid down by Article 77D – Benefit of pay protection granted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASMA SHAW — Appellant Vs. THE ISLAMIA COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND COMMERCE SRINAGAR KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Sections 2 and 3 – Quashing of FIR – Final report was filed by the investigation officer stating that no case was made out to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offences – Final report having been accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, nothing more requires to be adjudicated upon in the present matter – Appeal disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHMOOD ALI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Held, although a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of Section 197 of the CrPC would not be attracted at all as Section 197 is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SREENIVASA REDDY — Appellant Vs. RAKESH SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Quashing of FIR – Rape – Victim has not furnished any information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the alleged offence – Investigation is over and charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court – Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences – Quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IQBAL @ BALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…
HELD that the leak of ammonia gas was not occasioned due to wear and tear (as claimed by the Respondent) but was the outcome of an accident[1] which was not foreseen and beyond its control and not covered by any of the exceptions in the Refrigeration Policy (Exception Clause 3) so as to entitle the Respondent to claim immunity for the ultimate purpose of repudiating the insurance claim lodged by the Appellant – Payment of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- in full and final.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.S. COLD STORAGE INDIA PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…
Insurance Law – It is not open to an insurance company to ignore or fail to act upon a certificate or document that it had itself called for from independent and impartial authorities, subject to just exceptions, merely because it is averse to it or to its detriment
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. ISNAR AQUA FARMS — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…
If the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC is made out – None of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 365, 342 and 506 respectively of the IPC are disclosed on plain reading of the FIR – FIR is nothing but abuse of the process of law – FIR quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI IQBAL @ BALA THROUGH S.P.O.A. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala,…
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely – FIR quashed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…




