Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim for compensation — Deduction of Mediclaim benefits — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Award of compensation — Mediclaim policy is a contract of insurance purchased by an individual to cover uncertainties of life, with no specific accidental coverage — Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory remedy arising from negligence and injury — Mediclaim reimbursement is a contractual benefit independent of the Motor Vehicles Act claim — Deduction of Mediclaim benefits would denude claimant of benefits from premiums paid and unduly benefit insurer of offending vehicle — Compensation awarded under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to put the injured in the position as if the accident had not occurred — Medical expenses claimed and paid under Mediclaim are not deductible from compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act — These two stand on different footing; one is statutory, the other is contractual. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Proviso to Section 6 (erstwhile) and Section 8 — Devolution of interest on Class I heirs upon intestate death of a male — If a male Hindu dies intestate leaving a Class I female heir, his interest in coparcenary property devolves by intestate succession under Section 8 and not by survivorship — A notional partition is deemed to take place for ascertaining the deceased’s share. Medical Education — Relocation of Students — Financial Liability — Supreme Court intervened to protect academic future of students admitted to a college (SRMCH) facing deficiencies, by directing their relocation to other recognized colleges — The primary issue became the financial liability for the education provided at the transferee colleges. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 147 and 148 — Reopening of assessment — Validity — Tangible material — Change of opinion — Assessing Officer has no power to review an assessment; reassessment must be based on tangible material, not a mere change of opinion — The discovery of fresh information during a survey, which reveals the true nature of a transaction and suggests income has escaped assessment, can form the basis for reopening an assessment, even if certain disclosures were made during the original assessment. Wife’s pursuit of professional career and desire to provide safe environment for child are not grounds for cruelty or desertion. -Family Law — Divorce — Grounds — Cruelty and Desertion — Wife’s pursuit of professional career and desire to provide safe environment for child are not grounds for cruelty or desertion.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim for compensation — Deduction of Mediclaim benefits — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Award of compensation — Mediclaim policy is a contract of insurance purchased by an individual to cover uncertainties of life, with no specific accidental coverage — Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory remedy arising from negligence and injury — Mediclaim reimbursement is a contractual benefit independent of the Motor Vehicles Act claim — Deduction of Mediclaim benefits would denude claimant of benefits from premiums paid and unduly benefit insurer of offending vehicle — Compensation awarded under Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to put the injured in the position as if the accident had not occurred — Medical expenses claimed and paid under Mediclaim are not deductible from compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act — These two stand on different footing; one is statutory, the other is contractual.

Decided on : 05-12-2019 – [Section 197 CrPC] No Protection Of Sanction Where The Acts Are Performed Using The Public Office As A Mere Cloak For Unlawful Gains HELD “The High Court was also not justified in observing ‘that the protection available to a public servant while in service, should also be available after his retirement’.”

[Section 197 CrPC] No Protection Of Sanction Where The Acts Are Performed Using The Public Office As A Mere Cloak For Unlawful Gains [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI8 Dec 2019…

Decided on : 05-12-2019 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 302, 201, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 223, 227, 228 and 391 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 10 – After the commission of the crime, accused absconded and did not join the investigation – Prosecution has made out a strong prima facie case and the materials on record are sufficient to frame charges against accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy,…

Decided on : 05-12-2019 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 161 and 439 – Penal Code, 1908 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 397 – Murder – Common intention – Bail granted by High Court – Appeal against – Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not sub-serve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHIPAL — Appellant Vs. RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Decided on : 05-12-2019 – Denial of voluntary retirement does not mitigate the legal consequences that flow from resignation – Denial of voluntary retirement cannot be invoked before this Court to claim pensionary benefits when the first respondent has admittedly resigned. Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.— Appellant Vs. SH. GHANSHYAM CHAND SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Service Matters

Decided on : 06-12-2019 – Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Subordinate Engineering Service Regulations, 1978 – Regulations 16(2), 17, 18, 20 and 23 – Appointment – Determination of Seniority – Method of giving appointment to the senior most person of each category is only a fortuitus circumstance as such appointments were made dehors the merit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Decided on : 06-12-2019 – Service law – Dismissal – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification -It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’ – Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PHULPARI KUMARI — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

You missed