Insurance Law — Marine Insurance — Special Condition

 SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD.

Vs.

M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2021

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Insurance Law — Marine Insurance — Special Condition — “Voyage should commence & complete before monsoon sets in” — Implied Waiver / Non-Materiality — Where a marine insurance policy covers a voyage (Mumbai to Kolkata) for a specific period (16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013) which overlaps with the officially defined monsoon/foul weather season (commencing 1st May East Coast / 1st June West Coast), a special condition requiring the voyage to both commence and complete before the monsoon sets in is deemed non-material or impliedly waived by the insurer — This is because: (i) the insurer, knowing the voyage details and policy period, knew or ought to have known the voyage would occur during the monsoon; and (ii) strict interpretation leads to absurdity, potentially rendering the insurance cover illusory if a peril prevents timely completion.

Res Judicata / Constructive Res Judicata — Applicability to SEBI Proceedings — The principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, based on public policy ensuring finality, apply to proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and its Whole-Time Members (WTMs)

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Vs.

RAM KISHORI GUPTA AND ANOTHER

( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 7941 of 2019 with Civil Appeal Nos. 1649-1652 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No..........of 2025 (@ Diary No. 42829 OF 2019)

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Res Judicata / Constructive Res Judicata — Applicability to SEBI Proceedings — The principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, based on public policy ensuring finality, apply to proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and its Whole-Time Members (WTMs) — SEBI cannot pass multiple final orders imposing penalties on the same cause of action against the same parties based on the same show-cause notice, particularly after an earlier order (imposing debarment) has attained finality and been fully acted upon — Reopening the matter years later to impose additional penalties (like disgorgement) without just cause is impermissible.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Pleading and Evidence — Rejoinder — A respondent/complainant cannot introduce new factual evidence, such as a surveyor's report assessing quantum of loss

 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Vs.

M/S. PARK LEATHER INDUSTRIES LTD.

( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 913 of 2023

Decided on : 07-04-2025

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Pleading and Evidence — Rejoinder — A respondent/complainant cannot introduce new factual evidence, such as a surveyor's report assessing quantum of loss, for the first time in a rejoinder and expect the opposing party (appellant/opposite party) to have denied it in their earlier written statement/reply — The adjudicatory body cannot base its findings on the premise that the opposing party failed to deny evidence that was not before it when its pleadings were filed.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deductibility — Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006

 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Vs.

SMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND OTHERS

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No........of 2025 [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9515 of 2020]

Decided on : 08-04-2025

Financial assistance equivalent to 'pay/allowances' under Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules must be deducted from MV Act compensation for loss of income to prevent double recovery.

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deductibility — Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Financial assistance received or receivable by dependents of a deceased government employee under the Haryana Rules of 2006, specifically under the head equivalent to ‘pay and other allowances’ last drawn by the deceased, must be deducted/excluded while computing compensation for loss of income/dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — This is to avoid double payment towards the same component of loss.

Contract Act, 1872 — S. 28 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 20 — Contractual Clauses — Exclusive Jurisdiction — Validity —

 RAKESH KUMAR VERMA

Vs.

HDFC BANK LTD.

( Before : Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 2282 of 2025 with Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2025

Decided on : 08-04-2025

An exclusive jurisdiction clause in a private employment contract, designating a competent court, is valid and enforceable, ousting jurisdiction of other courts, despite potential unequal bargaining power.

A. Contract Act, 1872 — S. 28 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 20 — Contractual Clauses — Exclusive Jurisdiction — Validity — Parties to a contract, including an employment contract, are free to agree on conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon a specific court, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of other courts which might otherwise be competent under S. 20, CPC — Such a clause is valid and enforceable provided that: (i) it does not absolutely restrict a party from enforcing rights through usual legal proceedings (thus not violating S.28, Contract Act), (ii) the chosen court possesses inherent jurisdiction under the CPC or relevant statute and (iii) the agreement clearly expresses the intention, explicitly or implicitly (applying expressio unius est exclusio alterius), to exclude the jurisdiction of other competent courts.

Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 11 & 165(6)(ii) — Revenue Officers — Collector — Competence of Additional Collector

 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Vs.

DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No......of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10111 of 2024)

Decided on : 08-04-2025

An Additional Collector empowered under the M.P. Land Revenue Code can validly permit tribal land transfer under S.165(6)(ii) (outside notified areas) after due consideration, rendering subsequent suo motu revision setting aside such permission erroneous.

A. Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 11 & 165(6)(ii) — Revenue Officers — Collector — Competence of Additional Collector — An Additional Collector is competent and possesses the requisite jurisdiction to grant permission for the transfer of land belonging to a member of an indigenous tribe under Section 165(6)(ii), where Section 11 includes 'Additional Collectors' within the class of 'Collector', and a specific, pre-existing work allocation order issued by the Collector empowers the concerned Additional Collector to exercise the powers of the Collector under the Code.

B. Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Section 165(6)(i) & (ii) — Transfer of Land Belonging to Indigenous Tribes — Applicable Provision — Notified Area — The absolute prohibition on transfer under Section 165(6)(i) applies only to lands situated in areas specifically notified by the State Government as predominantly inhabited by indigenous tribes — Where the land in question is admittedly located outside such a notified area, the transfer is governed by Section 165(6)(ii), which permits transfer with the prior written permission of a revenue officer not below the rank of Collector.

Anticipatory Bail — Nature and Scope

 SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE

Vs.

ADITYA SARDA

( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No….of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13956 of 2023) with Criminal Appeal No……of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 14033 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15318 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15322 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13960 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15326 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15333 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 14128 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13965 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13975 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13983 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13976 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13971 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos.13973-13974 of 2023), Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15311 of 2023) and Criminal Appeal No……of (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13978 of 2023)

Decided on : 09-04-2025

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Nature and Scope — Power to grant anticipatory bail under S. 438 is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, not as a matter of routine — Its object is to protect individuals from harassment or humiliation, but this must be balanced against the larger societal interest in maintaining law and order and ensuring the proper course of justice. [Paras 18, 21]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Economic Offences — Economic offences constitute a class apart, affecting the economic fabric of society and posing serious threats to the nation's financial health — A stricter approach is warranted, and anticipatory bail should be granted with great caution, considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, deep-rooted conspiracies, potential loss of public funds, and the accused's conduct.

Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 — Sections 7(c), 13(1) & 13(7) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Entitlement

 NEHA ENTERPRISES

Vs.

COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N Bhatti, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 6553 of 2016

Decided on : 09-04-2025

Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 — Sections 7(c), 13(1) & 13(7) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Entitlement — Sales exempt under S. 7(c) — Where a dealer makes sales to manufacturer-exporters against Form-E, which are exempt from tax under S. 7(c) pursuant to notifications (dated 24.02.2010 and 25.03.2010), the dealer is not entitled to claim ITC on the purchase tax paid on such goods — The specific prohibition contained in S. 13(7)(i) explicitly disallows ITC facility in respect of purchases where the sale of such goods by the dealer is exempt under S. 7(c), thereby overriding the general entitlement provision in S. 13(1)

While limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law, it can be treated as a pure question of law where the suit is filed after an inordinate delay

 Limitation Act, 1963 — Question of Limitation — Nature (Fact/Law/Mixed) — While limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law, it can be treated as a pure question of law where the suit is filed after an inordinate delay without adequate explanation in the pleadings, or where the facts establishing the bar are evident from the record — In such cases, the court must address it under its S. 3 duty.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 & Order 41, Rules 23, 23A and 25 — Remand by High Court in Second Appeal — Justification

 R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER

Vs.

RAJMANI AND OTHERS

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 & Order 41, Rules 23, 23A and 25 — Remand by High Court in Second Appeal — Justification — Remand in second appeal should only be ordered when specific conditions under Order 41 are met or when absolutely necessary — Remanding a case solely for framing an issue (like limitation) and fresh trial is unwarranted and impermissible, particularly when the High Court possesses sufficient material on record to decide the substantial question of law itself, and where concurrent findings on the issue already exist from the courts below — Such remand unnecessarily prolongs litigation contrary to judicial efficiency.