10 Important Supreme Court Cases Reported in (2018) 3 SCC Part 4

1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, (2018) 3 SCC 622

Whether an award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is required to be first filed in the court having jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings for execution and then to obtain transfer of the decree or whether the award can be straightway filed and executed in the Court where the assets are located.

2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, (2018) 3 SCC 608

If the Board initiates any action against any person / consumer, then such action must be brought to its logical end in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act after affording an opportunity to such person / consumer.

3. D. Srinivas v. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 653

Life Insurance - Medical Examination - It would be logical for an underwriter to accept the premium based on the medical examination and not otherwise - Therefore, by the very fact that they accepted the premium waived the condition precedent of medical examination. 

Life Insurance - Rejection of the policy must be made in a reasonable time so as to be fair and in consonance with the good faith standards.

4. Ennore Port Trust v. V. Manoharan, (2018) 3 SCC 612

Labour Law - the disputes raised herein are not the disputes, which are capable of being tried effectively in writ jurisdiction and indeed are capable of being tried only by a Tribunal.

5. State of M.P. v. Mahendra Gupta, (2018) 3 SCC 635

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (Madhya Pradesh) - Concept of taking decision by majority of votes of the members is very much present in the scheme of the Rules. Although, where a decision is to be taken by the circulation by votes a special majority is provided in Rule 65(4) but present being not a case of decision by circulation, simple majority by members present was sufficient for making a binding decision by the State Transport Authority.

6. S. Thangaraj v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 605

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Disability - As a result of the multiple fractures sustained by him, the appellant has lost complete sensation below the abdomen. Evidently he cannot work any more as load man. In these circumstances, the assessment of disability at 70 per cent is incorrect. On a realistic view of the matter, the nature of the disability must be regarded as being complete.

7. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinish Jain, (2018) 3 SCC 619

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Court normally does not interfere where variation in the compensation is within the permissible limits.

8. State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corpn. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 585

It would be appropriate if in the interim and pending a final decision on making a reference (if at all) to a larger Bench, the High Courts be requested not to deal with any cases relating to the interpretation of or concerning Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

9. Mahavir v. Union of India, (2018) 3 SCC 588

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 - the cases in which there is deliberate action of the owners for not collecting the compensation and they do not want to receive it, section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not come to their rescue as provisions are to help those persons who are deprived of compensation but not for those who deliberately had not received it and litigated for decades for quashing of proceedings avoiding to receive compensation by willful act. The failure to deposit in court under section 31(1) in such cases would attract only interest as envisaged under section 34 of the Act and the provisions of section 24 cannot be so invoked in such cases.

10. Universal Cylinders Ltd. v. CCT, (2018) 3 SCC 648

Tax Law - Sales Tax - Since the price of the cylinder has been reduced, the assessee cannot charge more than the price fixed, is bound to refund the excess amount collected and is therefore legally entitled to get refund of the tax paid on the excess amount., with interest.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post