No Denial of Insurance Claim, for the delay in intimation of theft to Insurance Company: SC
Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from a 2016 judgment of the NCDRC which had denied the insurer’s claim. In this case, the Supreme Court cited its decision in Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others, which had facts similar to the present case, in which it was held that if an insured files a police report immediately after a vehicle is stolen and the police issue a final report after an investigation, then delay in informing the insurance company about the theft cannot be used to deny the policy holder’s claim.
The Court held that since an FIR was filed after the theft and the insurance company considered the claim to be fraudulent, it could not deny the claim based on a delay in intimation of theft to the insurance company.
No compromise acceptable between accused and survivor after conviction (Section 354 IPC): SC
In this case, the convict’s appeal against a Tripura High Court ruling was denied by a Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to one year in prison and a Rs 5,000 fine under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused-appellant has claimed before the Tripura High Court that the parties to the case reached an amicable settlement because they were neighbours and wanted to live in harmony. The appellant’s conviction was maintained by the High Court.
Later, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court that he and the complainant/victim had reached an agreement. But the Apex Court, on the other hand, refused to consider the matter and dismissed the appeal.
Case Name: Bimal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura
Delhi HC denies suspension of 7-year-sentence in evidence tampering case to Ansal Brothers (Uphaar Cinema Tragedy Case,1997)
The Ansal Brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal filed a petition in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, asking for the suspension of their seven-year sentence for tampering with evidence in the 1997 Uphaar Cinema fire outbreak. The order was issued by Justice Subramonium Prasad in response to the Ansal brothers’ appeal of a Sessions Court order which refused to suspend their sentence.
The case stemmed from a fire that broke out at the Uphaar Cinema on June 13, 1997, in which 59 people lost their lives. The Ansal brothers were convicted to seven years and a fine of 2.25 crore by a Delhi court in November 2021 for tampering with evidence in the Uphaar Cinema fire tragedy case.
Case Name: Sushil Ansal vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Gujarat HC acts on PIL seeking a ban on loudspeaker in mosques issues notice to Centre
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri issued notice on a petition filed by Dharmendra Vishnubhai, a doctor whose petition was regarding the use of loudspeakers creates a significant disruption to the general public, and citizens cannot be forced to listen to anything they do not want to hear.
When the Court inquired about the decibel authorised for the use of a microphone under the State’s Noise Pollution Rules, the petitioner stated that sounds up to 80 dB are permitted, yet mosques utilize loudspeakers with sound levels above 200 decibels.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the matter of Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association and Others, which granted noise pollution control directions in the year 2000.
3% reservation for PWD candidates can’t be sub-classified: Gauhati HC
Recently, the High Court of Gauhati ruled in the case of Saidur Rahman vs State of Assam and ors that the government is required by law to establish a 3% reservation for people with disabilities, irrespective of their caste, creed or religion. The court took into consideration the fact that India is a signatory to the Beijing Declaration and has to provide equal opportunities to PWD candidates.
In this case, a general category candidate, having a hearing impairment, was denied reservation for the post of a veterinary officer as he did not fulfil the criteria for the advertisement, which provided reservation to other categories namely, OBC, MOBC, ST(H). At the time, there were four vacancies available, but only one was filled. The petition requested a writ of mandamus ordering the respondents to appoint him against the PwD quota, which was allowed.
Article 22 mandates communicating the grounds of detention in writing in a language which the detainee understands: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court ruled that a detained person’s fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is to be informed of the reasons for his or her imprisonment in a language that he or she understands. The Court further held that an oral explanation does not fulfil the Constitution’s obligation and that the grounds should be disclosed to the detainee in writing and in a language he understands. A detainee can sign or write a few words in a language does not mean he or she is ‘fluent in the language,’ because they may not yet be able to comprehend the grounds for detention and the documents relied on to make an effective representation against the detention order.
Case Name: Jasvinder Kaur v Union of India
SC Strikes Gender Cap For Obtaining Licences By Orchestra Bars
The Supreme Court said that where women’s workplace safety is an issue, the state has a responsibility to establish an environment that encourages them to work rather than impede and stifle their decision. While striking down a licence requirement that imposed a gender cap on the number of people who could be on stage in orchestra bars, Justices KM Joseph and Ravindra Bhat made these observations. The Court remarked that the gender cap (only four ladies and four males were allowed on stage) imposed appeared to be the result of a stereotyped perception that women who performed in bars and institutions belonged to a “particular class of society”. As a result, the Bench came to the judgement that the restriction directly violated Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g), the latter provision affecting both performers and licensees.
Manan Kumar Mishra Re-Elected Chairman Of BCI For 6th Consecutive Term Without Opposition
For the sixth consecutive term, senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra was elected chairperson of the Bar Council of India (BCI) without opposition. For the first time in the BCI’s history, someone has been chosen chairman of the BCI without opposition six times in a row. Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani, who passed away recently, had previously served as chairperson for four periods.
For the second time, Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran was elected vice-chairperson. He was likewise elected without opposition. The newly-elected office-bearers will take office on April 17, 2022, and will remain in their positions until April 16, 2025. The BCI elections were held on February 6, 2022, but the results were kept in sealed covers as per the Karnataka High Court’s orders.
