Insurance Policy – Arbitrary Refusal to Renew – Insurer refused to renew the mediclaim policy, resulting in exclusion of coverage for a pre-existing disease contracted during the gap – The refusal deemed arbitrary – Emphasis on policy renewals maintaining original terms unless explicitly changed [Para 26].

Exclusion of STFI Perils – Terms and Conditions – Insurer issued a new policy excluding Storm, Tempest, Flood, and Inundation (STFI) perils – Refund of premium for STFI cover was deposited in insured’s account – Insured cannot claim lack of knowledge – Exclusion held valid [Paras 23-24].

Contract Interpretation – Insurer's Liability – Insurer's decision to exclude STFI perils was commercial – Courts cannot rewrite contracts – Insured's acceptance of policy and refund implies consent to terms [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the exclusion of STFI perils from the policy and validated the insurer’s actions.

Election Law – Recounting of Votes – Allegations of irregularities in the counting of votes and acceptance of invalid votes in favor of the returned candidate – Election Tribunal found evidence supporting the appellant's claims and ordered a recount – High Court’s single judge upheld this order – Division Bench reversed it without detailed analysis – Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s order for recount [Paras 1-14].

Judicial Review – Prima Facie Case – Tribunal and single judge properly evaluated evidence and allegations – Supreme Court emphasized necessity of detailed examination of evidence before reversing such findings [Paras 9-11].

Election Result – Declaration of Validity – After recount, appellant found to have more valid votes than the returned candidate – Supreme Court declared appellant as duly elected [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The order of recount by the Election Tribunal was upheld, and the appellant was declared duly elected.

Insurance Policy – Interpretation of Terms – Heavy rainfall causing damage to insured coal stock – Dispute over whether such damage falls under 'flood and inundation' clause – Terms 'flood' and 'inundation' held to encompass damage caused by excessive rainfall leading to accumulation of water – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Appointment of Chartered Accountant – Not Equivalent to Appointment of Second Surveyor – Chartered Accountant appointed to verify accounts not equivalent to appointing a second surveyor under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 – No procedural breach found [Para 6].

Flood and Inundation – Definitions and Application – Pluvial floods (surface floods) caused by excessive rainfall considered within the ambit of 'flood and inundation' – Damage due to heavy rainfall falls within policy coverage [Paras 8-12].

Consistent Judicial Interpretation – NCDRC's consistent view on damage due to heavy rainfall supporting the claim upheld [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Appellant directed to pay the sum awarded by the NCDRC to the respondent within eight weeks.

Tenant Rights – Actual Physical Possession – Tenants must be in actual physical possession of the land and building to claim rights under the Act – Subletting or licensing the premises to third parties disqualifies tenants from protection [Paras 12-22].

Protection under the Act – Expansion and Restriction – Amendments broadened the Act’s protection to tenants with registered leases but retained actual possession requirement – Tenants with written agreements involving 'erection of buildings' brought under protection retrospectively [Paras 5-15].

Statutory Rights – Construction of Statutes – Legislative amendments must be construed holistically to understand the context and purpose – The protection provided by the Act aims to prevent eviction of tenants who constructed buildings on leased land [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The appellants, petroleum companies, not entitled to the benefit and rights under the Act unless in actual physical possession of the buildings constructed by them. No costs awarded.

Service Law – Scheduled Tribe Claim – Invalid Caste Certificate – Appeal against High Court’s order protecting respondent’s employment despite invalid caste certificate – Supreme Court held that protection of service under invalid caste claims is not permissible – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-17].

Invalidation of Caste Claim – Supreme Court held that appointment based on a false claim to a reserved category renders the appointment void ab initio – Protection under the principle of prospective overruling not applicable – High Court's reliance on overruled Full Bench judgment in Arun Sonone was incorrect [Paras 7-9].

Administrative Circulars – Validity and Scope – Circulars cannot override constitutional or statutory principles – Supreme Court emphasized that administrative circulars protecting invalid caste claims are not legally sustainable [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Writ petition filed by the first respondent dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail – NDPS Act – Appeal against the grant of post-arrest bail to accused under NDPS Act – Section 37 mandates that no person accused of certain offences under NDPS Act shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – High Court’s liberal approach in granting bail without adhering to the conditions set out under Section 37 criticized – Appeals allowed, bail orders set aside [Paras 18-26].

Reasonable Grounds – Definition and Application – Section 37 of NDPS Act requires substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty – Reasonable belief necessitates the existence of facts and circumstances justifying satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence – High Court's oversight of these requirements noted and corrected by Supreme Court [Paras 21-23].

Judicial Discretion – Review and Limitation – Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity for compliance with statutory mandates in granting bail – Notes that the High Court failed to record findings mandated by Section 37 – Order of bail by High Court deemed erroneous and overturned [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order granting bail set aside – Bail bonds cancelled, accused directed to be taken into custody – Trial court instructed to expedite the trial [Paras 26-27].

Military Law – Dismissal from Service – Army Act – Appeal against the dismissal of the appellant from service by the Chief of Army Staff under Section 20 of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules – Supreme Court held that the dismissal was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 17, and did not violate the principle of double jeopardy – The punishment of reduction in rank by Summary Court Martial did not preclude the exercise of administrative powers under Section 20 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-10].

Double Jeopardy – Applicability – The principle of double jeopardy not violated by the dismissal under Section 20 of the Army Act as it involved independent administrative action based on the fraudulent nature of charges, distinct from the Summary Court Martial proceedings – Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, noting the proper procedure was followed [Paras 7-8].

Administrative and Disciplinary Proceedings – Independent Powers – Powers under Section 20 of the Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army Rules are independent and can be exercised notwithstanding the proceedings and punishment by Summary Court Martial – Such powers are administrative and separate from judicial proceedings of Court Martial [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Dismissal of the appellant from service upheld – Supreme Court affirms that the administrative order of dismissal was legally valid and properly executed following due process [Para 10].

Service Law – Promotion – Temporary Charge – Appeal against the High Court’s direction to promote the respondent to the post of Assistant and thereafter to Section Officer under TBPS – Supreme Court held that merely assigning temporary charge does not constitute a promotion – Settlements between management and Employees' Association binding on employees – Respondent as an Electrician was not entitled to promotion under TBPS as per the settlements – Appeal allowed [Paras 6-9].

Settlement Agreements – Binding Nature – Respondent bound by the settlement agreements between the employer and Employees' Association – Settlements dated 10.01.1984, 02.08.1988, and 15.06.1991 did not confer promotion rights under TBPS to the post of Electrician – High Court’s judgment granting promotions quashed [Paras 6-7].

Temporary Charge vs. Promotion – Supreme Court clarifies that holding a temporary charge of a higher post does not amount to formal promotion – Respondent continued to be designated as Electrician despite temporary duties – Appeal allowed [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order set aside – Respondent entitled to the same salary as Section Officers for the period he performed their duties on officiating basis, if not already paid – No costs [Para 9].

Motor Vehicle Insurance – Claim for Theft – Delay in Intimation – Appeal against rejection of claim due to delay in informing insurance company despite immediate FIR registration – Supreme Court held that mere delay in notifying the insurer cannot be a ground to deny the claim if the FIR is lodged immediately and the claim is verified as genuine by the investigator – Appeal allowed [Paras 16-20].

Interpretation of Insurance Contracts – Rule of Contra Proferentem – Insurance policies should be interpreted favorably towards the insured in cases of ambiguity – Consumer Protection Act emphasized as a beneficial legislation deserving liberal construction [Paras 10-11].

Duty to Co-operate – Assessment – Delay in informing the insurer about theft not prejudicial when FIR is promptly filed and the claim is verified as genuine – Rejection of claim on technical grounds discouraged to maintain trust in insurance industry [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – National Commission’s order reversed – Orders of the District Forum and State Commission reinstated – Insurer directed to pay the claim amount with interest [Paras 22-23].