Legal Reference Library

If the defaulting borrowers are given an opportunity to settle the dues according to an existing policy, it can not be changed later to their disadvantage, the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Devidayal Castings Ltd vs Haryana Financial Corporation. In this case, two borrowing firms did not repay the loans and therefore they were declared non-performing assets. In 2005, the corporation promulgated a policy whereby borrowers were given an option to settle their dues on the basis of the principal amount of the out standing in the loan accounts as on the date on which the accounts were de clared as NPA. The two firms were given the offer and asked to de posit 10 per cent of the dues as precondition for consideration of their cases. The borrowers accepted the offer. However, in 2015, the corporation changed the policy and according to the new one, where the value of the securities was more than the settlement amount, the corporation should resort to the sale of the secured prop er ties...

The Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmamma was called upon to decide whether an insurer is absolved of its obligations to the third party under the policy of insurance because the cheque given by the owner of the vehicle towards the premium got dishonoured and subsequent to the accident, the insurer cancelled the policy of insurance. While answering the above question, the Supreme Court held as under; 6. Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 (owner) supported the view of the High Court. He submitted that on the date of the accident, the policy was subsisting and the liability of the insurer continued and, therefore, the insurer cannot recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insured. 7. Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short, ‘Insurance Act’) provides as under: “64-VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance.- (1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on w...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 8542 of 2009 Decided On: 29.12.2015 Appellants: LIC of India Vs. Respondent: Insure Policy Plus Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Vikramajit Sen and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ. Case Note: Insurance - Assignment of lapse insurance policy - Section 38 Insurance Act, 1938; The Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 - First Respondent dealt in assignment of life insurance policies - Also traded lapsed policies - Insurance policies required registration in Appellant's books - Registration of lapsed policies was declined by Appellant - Relied on two Circulars issued by it - Cited public policy considerations - Respondents succeeded in petition before High Court - Life insurance policies were not social security - Other jurisdictions allowed trade and assignment of lapsed policies - Appellant's Circulars were illegal - Were contrary to Section 38 of the Act - Whether insurance policies are freely tradable and a...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2140 OF 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ……Appellant(s) VERSUS M/s Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd. ……Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5141 OF 2007 M/s Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant(s) VERSUS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ……Respondent(s) January 13, 2016. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS M/s Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd.,the respondent company while appealing against the claim allowed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as being too low. The issue was that respondent company’s claim after being burgled was rejected by the insurance company as according to the insurer the burglary took place in the night when the jewellery was kept in window display neither of which was covered by the polic...

PETITIONER: B.V. NAGARAJU Vs. RESPONDENT: M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HASSAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/05/1996 In this appeal by special leave, the question of importance arising therein is whether the alleged breach of carrying humans in a goods' vehicle more than the number permitted in terms of the insurance policy, is so fundamental a breach so as to afford ground to the insurer to eschew liability altogether? Ancillary to the question is the poser : whether the terms of the policy of insurance need be construed strictly or be read down to advance the main purpose of the contract as viewed by this Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors. [1987 2 SCC 654]? It is plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of vi...

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot amend its export-import policy to take away rights already accrued to exporters under a specific scheme. A special scheme related to their performance was announced in 2004 to boost exports by giving incentives on some items. Later it was amended by removing certain items. This spawned a rash of petitions in various high courts, which took different stands, especially Bombay and Gujarat high courts. All the parties appealed to the Supreme Court. In its common judgment, DGFT vs Kanak Exports, the court stated the government can decide policy. However, if the government realised that the earlier policy was "ill-considered" it was free to withdraw it but it could do so only prospectively, but not from a back date. "Duty credit entitlement cannot be snatched from exporters by making the amendment retrospectively."

The Supreme Court last week stated that a government department must implement the industrial policy laid down by the government and should not devise its own policy, that too contrary to the Cabinet decision. The government must speak with one voice, the court stated in its judgment Llyod Electric & Engg Ltd vs State of Himachal Pradesh. "What is given by the right hand cannot be taken by the left hand," it remarked while allowing the appeal of the company holding that it was eligible for concessional rate in central sales tax. While the Cabinet had extended tax benefits up to 2013 for industrial units to attract investments, the department maintained that the company was not eligible for them as the notification was issued later and did not cover it. The high court upheld the interpretation of the department. Setting aside the judgment of the high court, the Supreme Court stated that the department cannot issue a notification contrary to the Cabinet decision on policy m...