Facts:

Ladhabhai Thakarsibhai Bhanderi held an account with Saurashtra Gramin Bank.

The bank had an agreement with Oriental Insurance Company Limited for a group individual accident policy for its account holders.

To avail of this insurance cover, account holders were required to submit an application form to the bank, which would then deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer.

Ladhabhai submitted the insurance form to the bank but tragically met with an accident and subsequently passed away.

The insurer rejected the insurance claim, citing non-payment of the premium by the bank.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found the bank negligent and awarded the appellant Rs. 5 lakhs in compensation.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum's order.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also found the bank guilty of a deficiency of service but reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• Whether the bank's failure to forward the insurance application form and deduct the premium constituted a deficiency of service.
• What is the appropriate compensation amount owed to the appellant?

Held:

The NCDRC confirmed that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the bank. The bank's defense that the deceased had withdrawn and resubmitted the form was rejected by the District Forum and the State Commission. The NCDRC observed that the bank failed to explain the details of the application form mentioned at Serial No. 352. There is a specific finding that the bank's failure to deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer resulted in the repudiation of the claim. No insurance cover came into existence. The court finds no reason to take a different view, especially when the bank did not challenge the NCDRC's judgment. (Paragraph 9)

The court concludes that there was no justification for the NCDRC to reduce the compensation awarded to the appellant from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, which shall be paid to the appellant within 60 days from the date of the order. (Paragraph 10)

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Facts:

Ladhabhai Thakarsibhai Bhanderi held an account with Saurashtra Gramin Bank.

The bank had an agreement with Oriental Insurance Company Limited for a group individual accident policy for its account holders.

To avail of this insurance cover, account holders were required to submit an application form to the bank, which would then deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer.

Ladhabhai submitted the insurance form to the bank but tragically met with an accident and subsequently passed away.

The insurer rejected the insurance claim, citing non-payment of the premium by the bank.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found the bank negligent and awarded the appellant Rs. 5 lakhs in compensation.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum's order.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also found the bank guilty of a deficiency of service but reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• Whether the bank's failure to forward the insurance application form and deduct the premium constituted a deficiency of service.
• What is the appropriate compensation amount owed to the appellant?

Held:

The NCDRC confirmed that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the bank. The bank's defense that the deceased had withdrawn and resubmitted the form was rejected by the District Forum and the State Commission. The NCDRC observed that the bank failed to explain the details of the application form mentioned at Serial No. 352. There is a specific finding that the bank's failure to deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer resulted in the repudiation of the claim. No insurance cover came into existence. The court finds no reason to take a different view, especially when the bank did not challenge the NCDRC's judgment. (Paragraph 9)

The court concludes that there was no justification for the NCDRC to reduce the compensation awarded to the appellant from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, which shall be paid to the appellant within 60 days from the date of the order. (Paragraph 10)

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal against High Court’s order acquitting accused – High Court found prosecution case to suffer from serious infirmities and inconsistencies – Missing links in chain of circumstances – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 19-26].

Conspiracy – Circumstantial Evidence – Direct evidence of conspiracy seldom available – Conspiracy inferred from circumstances – Prosecution failed to prove complete chain of circumstances linking accused to crime – High Court's reasoning endorsed by Supreme Court [Paras 25-28, 29].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Hostile Witnesses – Several key witnesses turned hostile – Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – High Court's appreciation of evidence found to be correct – Acquittal upheld [Paras 30-40, 41-50].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment acquitting accused persons upheld [Para 50].

Trusts – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Section 92 of CPC – High Court's finding that suit by Trust against Sevadar was not maintainable without complying with Section 92 CPC – Section 92 applicable to suits against Trusts, not by Trusts – High Court’s order erroneous – Suit maintainable and decree rightly passed by First Appellate Court [Paras 10-12].

Legal Representative – Sevadar – Appointment of Chela – Respondent Ram Niwas, Chela of deceased Sevadar, not vested with larger interest – Legal representative's status considered – Sevadar's services open to public [Paras 9-12].

Compensation – Misuse Concerns – Appellant as registered Society with statutory obligations – Apprehension of misuse of compensation beyond suit's scope [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Suit decreed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Suppression of Criminal Case – Employment in Police Service – Respondent applied for constable position and falsely stated no involvement in any criminal case – Appointed but later found to be involved in a criminal case – Discharged for false statement – Tribunal upheld discharge, but High Court reversed, citing triviality and quashing of criminal case – Supreme Court reinstates discharge, emphasizing the significance of truthful disclosure for police employment [Paras 3-8].

Employment Law – Disclosure of Antecedents – Suppression of Material Facts – Police service requires truthful disclosure of criminal antecedents – Respondent suppressed involvement in non-trivial criminal case – Subsequent quashing of case on compromise does not mitigate initial suppression – High Court’s reinstatement order set aside [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Tribunal’s order discharging respondent upheld – Original Application dismissed [Para 9].

Town Planning – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Allotment of Alternative Sites – High Court directed Municipal Corporation to allot alternative tenements to displaced tenants and consider TDR for landowners – Corporation's demolition of structures without due process found high-handed – Corporation's willingness to grant TDR acknowledged but relief of restitution balanced against public interest – Appeal dismissed, High Court's order upheld [Paras 7-8, 15-16].

Demolition without Due Process – High-handed Actions – Findings of High Court and Legal Services Committee – Structures existed prior to 1961, demolition conducted without following due process – High Court’s order granting alternative accommodation to eligible tenants and TDR to landowners upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 7-8, 12-13].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s orders upheld – Corporation to grant TDR and alternative tenements as directed [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegations of providing sub-standard materials for a project – FIR filed in 2000, charge sheet in 2004, summons served in 2017 – No specific allegations of fraudulent or dishonest intention from inception – No vicarious liability established against Managing Director and Director – Company not made a party – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent undue harassment [Paras 6-9].

Corporate Liability – Directors' Liability – No specific allegations of vicarious liability in the absence of company as a party – Inappropriate to proceed against directors alone without requisite allegations [Para 8.2].

Delay – Significant delay in serving summons post charge sheet filing – Contributing to decision for quashing proceedings [Para 8.3].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Criminal proceedings against appellants quashed – Proceedings against other accused to continue as per law [Paras 9-10].

Town Planning – Demand of Premium – Letter of Intent (LOI) – LOI valid for three months – Delay in obtaining clearance from Coastal Zone Management Authority – Appellants failed to make representation to extend LOI – Premium demand in accordance with Government Resolution dated 16.04.2008 requiring payment of 25% of Ready Reckoner value for Slum Rehabilitation Schemes on government land – High Court's dismissal of writ and review petitions upheld [Paras 11-12].

Procedure – LOI Validity – Representation to Extend – Appellants' failure to extend LOI validity despite delay in obtaining necessary clearances – Government Resolution applies due to non-extension – No illegality in premium demand [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's orders upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court examined charges at pre-trial stage – Allegations of obtaining fake loans with the connivance of bank officials – High Court erred in quashing charges when allegations required proof in trial – Beneficiary status of respondents due to father's position as bank president prima facie indicates offenses under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC – Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside [Paras 5-6].

Corruption – Beneficiary of Fake Loans – Accused obtained cash credit limits improperly while their father was bank president – Allegations suggest offense under Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC – Proper documentation lacking for loan sanctioning – Allegations against other bank officials also supported charge under Prevention of Corruption Act [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order quashing charges against respondents set aside – Respondents may pursue other legal remedies as available [Para 6].

Service Law – Termination – Challenge to High Court order upholding reinstatement – Termination order was a speaking order with reasons clearly stated – High Court erred in concluding the termination was without reasons – No legal or factual similarity between the cases of Ram Gopal and Shyam Behari Lal to warrant parity – Ram Gopal had not been in service since 1978, unlike Shyam Behari Lal who had served for 17 years – Respondent's writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay of 12 years without valid justification – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders set aside, and writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Equity – In Personam vs. In Rem – High Court's retention order for Shyam Behari Lal was not a judgment in rem – Equitable considerations in Shyam Behari Lal’s case not applicable to Ram Gopal – Fence-sitting and prolonged delay in filing writ petition cannot justify reinstatement – Legal principle of equity acts in personam, not in rem [Paras 13, 16-19].

Laches and Delay – Respondent's writ petition filed after 12 years – Courts reluctant to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favor of those who sleep over their rights – Delay defeats equity – Legal tenets restated that unexplained delays and laches are valid grounds to deny relief [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Interim order in contempt proceedings also quashed [Para 20].