Category Archives: Blog

Section 155 of the Motor Vehicle Act which clearly states that the death of the person, in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, after the happening of the accident which gave rise to filing of claim petition, is no bar to the proceedings and therefore, proceedings do not abate as held by the High Court of J&K and Ladakh through a learned bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Naresh Kumar and Another [MA No.18/2016 IA Nos.1/2016 & 1/2017].

The facts giving rise to filing of present appeal are that an accident took place on Jammu Pathankote National Highway at Ghagwal wherein the claimant respondent No.1 herein, got severely injured. At the relevant point of time, the claimant was working as Cleaner in the offending vehicle which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and on account of disablement caused to the claimant; he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. Considering the evidence put-forth before the Tribunal and record of the file, the Tribunal came to the conclusion and passed an award of an amount of Rs.27,68,748/- along with pendentelite and future interest @7.5 % per annum throughout till realization except on the head of loss of future income and future income includes the future expenditure.

The main ground of challenge thrown by the Insurance Company was that there is no privity of contract between the insurance company and owner of the vehicle who expired during the proceeding before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the insurance company is under no obligation to indemnify the owner in the absence of the insurance policy. In this regard, the learned counsel has produced number of judgments, some of them are Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Misra and others, 2005(3)JKJ 50, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi, 2016(3) JKJ 353 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramjee Pandey and another, 2009 ACJ 2301.

Per contra, Mr. Vipan Gandotra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the death of the owner during the proceeding is not a bar and as such, the claim petition does not abate. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a judgment in Ranbir Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. and another.

The Hon’ble High Court after hearing the parties and a perusal of the facts on record concluded that “As far as the question of the abatement of the claim proceedings is concerned, the position is very clear owing to the Section 155 of the Motor Vehicle Act which clearly states that the death of the person, in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, after the happening of the accident which gave rise to filing of claim petition, is no bar to the proceedings and therefore, proceedings do not abate.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

Petitioner granted bail after he promised to marry the opposite party No. 2 as it was found that he was the biological father of her child. The Court passed the directions to confirm that the family was living happily after 2 months of marriage. the Court also talked with the child to fully ensure that the petitioner married without any volition or pressure upon him. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Sanjeet Sada v. The State of Bihar and others[Criminal Miscellaneous No.78936 of 2019]. 

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with the Case, instituted under Sections 341, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The DNA test of the child was conducted and showed up that the petitioner was his father biologically.

The petitioner took a stand and promised to marry the opposite party no. 2. The Court had made sure that such stand was not taken under any duress and it has been recorded that the stand was that on his own volition, the petitioner and his family members had agreed to get the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 married and to accept the child in the house. A check and affidavit were made which ensured that after around 2 months the family lived happily and reports were also called upon to check that the family was living happily. From the entire report and the statement of the persons, there is no indication that the parties have married and only it has been stated that they are living together as husband and wife.

The Court constrained that both Additional Public Prosecutor and the superintendent failed to notice and ensure compliance with the direction of the court. The court called upon the family and the petitioner submitted that they have been living happily married and the child also had a talk at the chamber of the judge and he was well satisfied.

The Court held that the petitioner shall be granted bail and fulfill the terms and conditions. The petitioner shall keep the opposite party 2 and the child in their matrimonial home with security, dignity, and honor. She shall be free to meet anyone she wants and shall be there with free will. The Court asked the Superintendent and Additional Public Prosecutor for an explanation of the misconduct and mistake made by them in the next hearing.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

Petitioner alleged torture and assault to the deceased led to him committing suicide. The Court in the light of all facts and circumstances denied the bail to the petitioner as she was the sole in charge of the house and had 2 other children as well who were her own children which means that the allegations were believable. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Gunjan Devi v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No.25919 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with Case, instituted under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner was the stepmother of the deceased and she along with the deceased father used to torture and assault the informant and his deceased brother which led to him committing suicide.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the petitioner is a young lady and had married the informant’s father 18 years back and had no role in the suicide of the deceased. It was submitted that the informant, deceased, and another brother had not accepted the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submitted that in fact, it was the deceased and his two brothers, including the informant, who used to torture her for which she has filed Informatory Petition a few years back. In the informatory petition, it was mentioned that they may kill her as well. It was submitted that there is no allegation of any abetment of suicide against the petitioner.

The Additional Public Prosecutor summed up and submitted that it was very obvious that the father has married the lady because of his own choice despite the huge age difference between both of them. It was also obvious that the second wife after the birth of her own children doesn’t treat the children of the first wife with the same care and love thus the allegations are deemed to be real and obvious as well as believable. It was further submitted that in the informatory petition itself it has been stated that the husband of the petitioner used to work outside and it was the petitioner who was responsible for maintaining the house.

It was submitted that this further makes it clear that she was in charge of the house. It was contended that the deceased had no other reason for taking his own life apart from being treated badly by the petitioner especially keeping in mind that the father used to stay outside the home and the petitioner was the sole in charge of the house and children.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the allegations made cannot be said to be false, unfounded or unbelievable. Rather, in the present scenario and the facts and circumstances which have been placed before the Court, the allegations appear to be natural and cannot be brushed aside, especially at this stage.” The court hence denied the pre-arrest bail and the petition was dismissed

Click Here To Read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

While exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot continue illegalities, irregularities or improprieties based on what evidently was a vague plea. The Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan held such an opinion regarding Jyoti Agrawal Vs. State Of Sikkim & Ors. [WA No. 06/2021]. 

The facts of the case were related to a judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 56 of 2018 (Jyoti Agarwal Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors) dated 16th August, 2021. The said impugned order was dismissed. It was asked before the learned judge if the Writ Petitioner’s degree of M.A. Mathematics from the EIILM University of Sikkim was a valid degree or not. Regarding the said question the Single Judge stated that “In conclusion, the Petitioner has failed to make out her case for recognition of her Degree in M.A. (Maths) from the EIILM University as legal, genuine and valid for all purposes. Devoid of any merit, the Petition deserves to be and thus stands dismissed.” 

The Hon’ble Court after going through all the submissions held that the facts found in the instant case the learned judge did not find any infirmity or perversity. It was also stated by The Hon’ble Judge that impugned judgment was supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. Therefore, after thorough consideration, The Hon’ble Court ruled out that “For reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the instant writ appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed along with IA No.02 of 2021.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

The accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. The rule of bail and not jail cannot be pressed into service in the case of the applicant. Each case has its own peculiarities and circumstances which are required to be looked into while considering bail. This was held in the judgment passed by a single judge bench comprising of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA in the matter of Mohd. Toyab V. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others [Bail Appl. No. 14/2020], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition seeking bail as he has been booked for commission of offence under Section 420/120-B RPC in F.I.R initially registered with Police Station, Rajouri.

The bail is sought on the ground that the accused has not committed any offence as he was only appointed as agent of M/s Hablas-e-Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and in case the applicant has collected money on behalf of the investors it was for the company and not in individual capacity.

Further it is contended that the charge-sheet has been presented against the accused in the Court of law and in case any further recovery is to be made from the accused the same can be fruitful in case he is out of custody. It is further argued that some of the accused have been granted bail by the Court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Poonch in another related F.I.R having same allegations therein. Lastly, it is submitted that the accused is entitled to bail in view of the directions asked by the Apex Court on account of extra ordinary situation prevailing because of COVID-19 pandemic.

The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the complicity of the accused is direct in the case as he had not only made the depositors to deposit the amount with the company but also utilized the same as is evident from the bank accounts of the applicant. The amount of more than Rs. 12 Crore was collected by deception from the investors by the company and their agents as is revealed by the investigations as of now.

The investigation is still going on in the case. It is also submitted that the accused in the case are having no permission from RBI to collect the cash deposits nor having licence from any of the authorized authority to run the business. The company is a total fraud as per the reports. The involvement of other employees whose names surfaced during interrogation and the losses suffered by the depositors is being worked out. In case the accused is released on bail he can tamper with the evidence.

After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition and held that the Court does not find substantial change of circumstances to grant bail to the accused after the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the applicant for bail.

Click here to view judgement

Judgement reviewed by – Vaishnavi Raman