Legal Reference Library

High Court of Delhi Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Haryana Telecom Limited MANU/DE/1072/2017 21.04.2017 Arbitration Party complaining breach of contract is entitled to reasonable compensation whether or not actual loss is proved to have been caused Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ('MTNL') has filed present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an Award dated 12th March, 2003 passed by Arbitral Tribunal ('AT') in disputes between MTNL and Respondent, Haryana Telecom Limited ('HTL'). AT held that, since MTNL failed to prove actual loss or damage on account of delayed delivery of goods and since, mere delay in supplies was unlikely to cause damages, question of even fixing a reasonable compensation under Section 74 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 ('ICA') did not arise. Consequently, MTNL was asked to refund HTL sum of Rs. 1,03,20,763 together with interest @ 12% from the date of Award till the dat...

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MANU/CF/0510/2016 25.10.2016 Consumer Insured is required to intimate loss or damage to insurer expeditiously and within a reasonable time As complaint was dismissed by Commission, review petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal before Supreme Court. In terms of liberty granted by Supreme Court, present review petition has been filed by complainant. In view of specific direction of Supreme Court, scope of review petition is restricted to issue as to whether Respondent insurer had waived the condition related to delay in intimation, by appointing a surveyor. Clause-6 of Insurance Policy, required insured to forthwith give notice to insurer on happening of any loss or damage. It is an admitted position that instead of rejecting claim out rightly on account of delay in intimating loss to it, insurer appointed a surveyor to visit premises of complainant/review pe...

Willers v. Joyce and another United Kingdom 20.07.2016 Tort A person who suffers damage as a result of malicious prosecution of a civil suit against him is entitled to recover that damage Principal issue in instant appeal is relating to prosecution of civil proceedings in tort of malicious prosecution. Instant appeal is from a decision striking out a claim brought by Mr Peter Willers against Mr Albert Gubay as disclosing no cause of action known to English law. Mr Willers was Mr Gubay’s right hand man for over 20 years until he was dismissed in the summer of 2009. Mr Willers was a director of Langstone Leisure Ltd. In 2010 Langstone sued Mr Willers for alleged breach of contractual and fiduciary duties in causing it to incur costs in pursuing the Aqua directors. Mr Willers defended the action, and issued a third party claim for an indemnity against Mr Gubay, on grounds that he had acted under Mr Gubay’s directions in the prosecution of the Aqua claim. It is Mr Willers’ case ...

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has held that vehicles carrying passengers in excess of its capacity, cannot claim own damage insurance cover. The Bench comprising of Justices Ajit Bharihoke and Rekha Gupta upheld the State Forum view that in an own damage claim case, defense of overloading is available to the insurer. In this case, the District Forum had allowed the own damage claim against the insurer by the bus owner. But on appeal, the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum [Read order] had observed that there is ample material on record to show that the bus having seating capacity of 35+1 was carrying passengers much in excess of its capacity, and hence in these circumstances if the claim is not paid by the insurer it cannot be said to be deficiency in service. In third party cases defense of overloading might not be available but this is an Own Damage case and a person cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs, the Forum had said. Dismissing the R...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal Nos. 49-50 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 37534-37535 of 2013) Decided On: 07.01.2016 Appellants: Lakhmi Chand Vs. Respondent: Reliance General Insurance Hon'ble Judges/Coram: T.S. Thakur, C.J.I. and V. Gopala Gowda, J. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Munawwar Naseem, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Subject: Consumer Subject: Insurance Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 149(2), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 163A, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 166; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 279, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 337, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 338, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 427 Cases Referred: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravinbhai D. Prajapati IV 2010 ...