Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Permitting a stay on regulatory penalties under the guise of insolvency proceedings would undermine the very purpose of the CP Act and embolden errant developers to escape liability through insolvency proceedings.
by Saloni Kapadia* and Karan Gandhi**
The Court reiterated that one-sided Agreements, as in the present case, would be covered by the definition of term “unfair trade practice”.
The NCDRC noted that Reliance General Insurance did not take the issue of territorial jurisdiction before SCDRC; therefore, SCDRC basing its decision on the same, was bad in law.
“This was not an internal spark but it was a heavy vibration that the roter and the other components rubbed causing the spark of fire at the exciter end that propagated towards the generator. The exclusion clause therefore would not apply”.
The Commission noted that the appellant’s claim regarding non-deployment of air bags due to manufacturing defect, was not well established through any Expert Opinion.
Supreme Court permitted the appellant to file a written statement on or before 14-10-2024. The respondent/complainants were allowed to file replication, if any, by 06-11-2024 and the affidavit of evidence on or before 09-12-2024.
“SCDRC was not justified in saying that a person is entitled to more compensation, depending upon the fact of the case than the compensation as provided under the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990”.
NCDRC pointed out that the Fortis hospital and the assigned doctor ignored the condition of the patient’s lungs and started angioplasty, thereby resulting in severe pulmonary edema within half an hour of beginning the procedure leading up to further complications.
This 24-year-old matter revolved around a sixth-generation leading jeweller of Hyderabad who in 2002 underwent coronary surgery at Care Hospital but developed life threatening complications after the operation.
When the Court suggested it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition due to territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petitions. The Court granted this request, allowing the petitioner to take appropriate legal steps.
Supreme Court reiterated that exclusion clauses in insurance contracts are interpreted strictly against the insurer as they have the effect of completely exempting the insurer of its liabilities.
The Maharashtra Commission in the impugned order, had concluded that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect, without calling for an expert report on the matter.
The State Commission absolved Flipkart from any liability as it was merely facilitating the sale through its portal. However, it was noted that Flipkart should have displayed a strict attitude vis-à-vis breach of terms regarding sale of counterfeit products on its site.
The wife of the Deceased Life Assured had filed claims as the nominee of her husband’s life insurance policies. However, the claim was rejected as the DLA failed to disclose material facts while availing the policies, thereby violating the principle of ubberima fidei (utmost good faith)
Supreme Court said that the Compensation by its nature must be just, and described the compensation awarded to the appellant as ‘paltry’.
“Promotional trailers are unilateral and are only meant to encourage a viewer to purchase the ticket to the movie, which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer by itself is not an offer and neither intends to nor can create a contractual relationship.”
NCDRC pointed out that the State Commission’s finding that non-deployment of the airbags when the respondent’s car crashed, warranted punitive damages, was not based on any finding of fact or legal precedent.
The Commission noted that the scientific analysis and the clarifications issued by the Government itself did not indict Nestle India, therefore, there is no material to support the allegations made in the complaint so as to proceed any further.