Marine Insurance - Breach of Warranty - Classification Certificate - Appeal against NCDRC decision - Appellant's challenge to the validity of Classification Certificate - Whether appellant complied with warranty requirement and informed Classification Society of defects before obtaining Certificate - Interpretation of Marine Insurance Act 1963 and related case law - Importance of informing Classification Society of defects before Certificate issuance - Impact of warranty breach on insurer's liability examined.

Marine Insurance Act 1963 - Provisions regarding warranties - Implications of breach of warranty on insurer's liability - No implied warranty of seaworthiness in time policy - Insurer's non-liability for losses due to unseaworthiness if ship sent to sea in unseaworthy state with assured's privity - Role of Classification Certificate in insurance coverage. [Para 16]

Classification Certificate - Vital for insurance coverage - Assured's obligation to report defects before issuance - Lack of evidence for defect reporting by appellant before obtaining Certificate. [Para 17]

Interpretation of Precedent Cases - Prior claims for damages without clarifying replacement of engine crankshaft - Insurer unaware of non-compliance with warranty - Issuance of insurance policy based on trust and full disclosure. [Para 20]

Onus of Reporting Defects - Appellant's argument of insurer's obligation to inquire further about repairs dismissed - Responsibility of assurer to report defects and compliance with warranty. [Para 21]

NCDRC Decision - Upheld for correctly considering relevant aspects and arriving at justified conclusion - Lack of merit in appellant's appeal. [Para 24]

Appeal dismissed as lacking merit - Appellant failed to establish warranty class was not breached - NCDRC's decision upheld - No costs awarded.[Para 25-26]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of proceedings – Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Husband's challenge to the High Court's order – Challenge to proceedings pending under Sections 417, 498(A), 306, 406, and 201 of IPC – Special leave granted. [Para 1]

Suicide – Evidence of suicide required for Section 306 IPC – No merit in evidence substantiating suicide – Deceased's health issues indicated – Marital discord evident – Proceedings quashed for lack of material evidence under Section 306 IPC. [Para 9]

Procedure – Importance of prompt complaint by police officer complainant – Delayed complaint after cremation raised doubts – Value and substance of evidence questioned – Accused acquitted due to lack of material evidence – Appeals dismissed. [Para 10]

Criminal Appeal No. 901 allowed, setting aside High Court's judgment – Criminal Appeals No. 902 and 903 dismissed – Proceedings quashed due to insufficient evidence – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 11]

Civil Appeal – Challenge to National Green Tribunal Order – Non-compliance of STP regulations – Imposition of interim compensation – Quantum of compensation disputed – Lack of reasons for imposition of higher amount – Appellant challenges lack of reasoning – Tribunal’s decision lacks recorded reasons – Remand for reconsideration of interim compensation quantum – Committee of Experts initially proposed lower compensation – Appellant deposited the proposed lower amount – Appellant’s challenge not to finding of non-compliance but to higher imposed compensation – Lack of reasons for higher compensation – Case remanded to National Green Tribunal for fresh consideration of interim compensation quantum – Tribunal directed to hear parties and decide interim compensation issue afresh – Appellant’s deposited amount to be treated as interim compensation – Appeal partly allowed – Urgent resolution of interim compensation issue urged. [Para 1-9]

Civil Appeal – Insurance Dispute – Challenge to NCDRC Judgment- The appellants contest the liability to pay a sum along with interest to the respondent, challenging the judgment of the NCDRC. The validity of the insurance policy and the coverage of a fire accident under the policy are at issue. The appellant's argument of policy cancellation lacks substantiating evidence. The NCDRC's conclusion, considering the validity of the policy, is justified, and no interference is warranted. (Para 1-3)

Debt Recovery – Impleadment of Lending Bank – Application for Direction - An application by the lending bank seeks impleadment in relation to dues. A recovery certificate issued by DRT under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is mentioned. The order for attachment of the payable amount is sought. The available deposit is to be transferred to DRT, Guwahati, and parties are provided with an opportunity for due consideration of the amount due and payable. (Para 4-8)

Observation – Absence of Evidence Supporting Appellant's Claim - The appellants' failure to produce communication indicating policy cancellation is noted, and the absence of evidence supporting the claim is highlighted. The NCDRC's judgment is upheld, and the proceedings for debt recovery and attachment of the payable amount are directed to proceed in accordance with the law, providing an opportunity for due consideration. (Para 2-3, 4-8)

Decision – Appeal and Pending Applications Disposed Of - The appeal and pending applications are disposed of. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to DRT, Guwahati for further proceedings. The recovery officer is directed to consider the due amount and pass appropriate orders. No interference is warranted in the NCDRC's judgment. (Para 7-8)

Conclusion – Appeal Disposed Of, Amount to be Transferred to DRT - The appeal is disposed of, and the amount in deposit shall be transferred to DRT, Guwahati for further proceedings. Parties are to be provided with an opportunity for due consideration of the amount due and payable. (Para 7-8)

Income Tax Appeal - Exemption for charitable activities - Appellant's challenge to reliance on High Court judgment - Issue of applicability of judgment in a similar case - Whether activities of the respondent qualify for tax exemption - Court's consideration of the nature of activities conducted by statutory corporations - Emphasis on excluding activities serving public purposes from business or commercial receipts - Scrutiny of charges exceeding costs and nominal markups - Application of previous judgment's observations to the case - Dismissal of appeals, affirming the respondent's eligibility for tax exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act - Court's reinforcement of principles distinguishing public utility activities from commercial ventures for tax exemptions. [Para 1-5]

The appellant, an Assistant General Manager at the State Bank of India, Overseas Bank, faced charges under the IPC and the PC Act. He contested the proceedings, arguing that he was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC and that no sanction was granted under Section 19 of the PC Act.

Issues: Whether the appellant falls under the category of a public servant not removable from office except with government sanction, as per Section 197 of the CrPC.

• Whether the appellant can be prosecuted for IPC offenses without the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.

Analysis:

• Section 197 of the CrPC applies to public servants not removable from office without government sanction. The appellant, employed in a Nationalized Bank, does not fall under this category.

• The requirement for sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act applies to PC Act offenses, not IPC offenses. The need for sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC for IPC offenses depends on whether the act has a reasonable connection with the official duty of the public servant.

Held: The appellant does not fall under the category of a public servant entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC. While he was discharged from PC Act offenses, he can be prosecuted for IPC offenses without the need for sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The appeal is dismissed.

Civil Appeal – Pay Protection – Appellant's claim for pay protection – Appellant appointed as a Lecturer in English at the 1st respondent college – Dispute arises regarding pay protection – Single Judge of the High Court grants pay protection – Division Bench of the High Court overturns the decision – Appeal filed in the Supreme Court. [Para 1]

Interpretation of Regulations – Applicability of Article 77-D of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations – Whether the appellant's post was substantive or ad-hoc – Application of third proviso to Article 77-D – Key question of whether the appellant's appointment was on a substantive basis. [Para 5-10]

Advertisement and Terms of Appointment – Examination of the language used in the advertisement and the terms of the appellant's appointment – Differentiating between a tenure post and an appointment on a regular post with tenure basis – Indications supporting the appellant's substantive appointment. [Para 7-8]

Exception to Article 77-D – Analysis of the third proviso to Article 77-D – Determining whether the appellant's previous post was ad-hoc, temporary, or against a short-term vacancy – Finding that the appellant's appointment did not fall within the exception. [Para 10]

High Court's Decision – Critique of the Division Bench's reasoning – Ignoring the exception carved out by the third proviso to Article 77-D – Faulty conclusion that the appellant's post was not substantive – Restoration of the Single Judge's judgment directing pay protection. [Para 13-14]

Conclusion and Orders – Impugned judgment set aside – Single Judge's judgment restored – Direction to 1st and 2nd respondents to provide pay protection to the appellant within one month – Payment of arrears within three months – Appeal allowed. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of sexual offences and assault – Appellants seeking quashing of FIR – Examination of the factual matrix and legal submissions – Absence of specific details in the FIR regarding date and time of alleged offences – Completion of investigation and readiness of charge sheet – Court’s duty to examine whether FIR is manifestly frivolous or vexatious – Importance of considering attending circumstances beyond the averments – Possibility of private vengeance or personal grudge in multiple FIRs – Appellants directed to prefer discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before the Trial Court. [Para 7]

Observation – Duty of the Court in scrutinizing FIRs for quashing – Court’s obligation to look beyond the averments and consider overall circumstances – Reading between the lines in frivolous or vexatious proceedings – Multiple FIRs indicating the possibility of personal grudge or private vengeance. [Para 10]

Conclusion – Appeal disposed with liberty for appellants to file discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before the Trial Court – Matter to be examined based on materials collected during investigation – Importance of considering the possibility of personal grudge or private vengeance in the registration of multiple FIRs. [Para 11]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Parameters: The Court reiterated the parameters for quashing an FIR, as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, including scenarios where the allegations do not constitute an offense, the allegations are absurd, and the proceedings are manifestly attended with malice.

Facts - Allegations - Investigation: The appellant challenged an order of the High Court rejecting his petition to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses under the IPC. The FIR was based on allegations that the appellant, in a position of influence, committed offenses such as dacoity, kidnapping, and extortion. Investigations revealed a history of multiple FIRs registered against the appellant and his family.

Analysis - Ingredients of Offense - Abuse of Process: The Court analyzed the content of the FIR, considering the history of multiple FIRs and the possibility of abuse of process. The Court concluded that the allegations made in the FIR, even if true, did not meet the necessary criteria to constitute the alleged offenses, particularly dacoity. The Court emphasized the importance of not restricting analysis to the face value of the FIR but considering surrounding circumstances.

Appeal Allowed - set aside the High Court's order - quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR. (Para No. 10, 14, 20, 26, 32, 35)