Consolidated Case Summaries with Deeper Analysis
1. Manmohan Nanda vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Background:
Mr. Nanda, an Indian national working abroad, took an Overseas Mediclaim Policy from United India
Assurance Ltd. The insurer repudiated his claim alleging non-disclosure of pre-existing heart disease.
He challenged this up to the Supreme Court.
Facts:
Policy issued covered overseas hospitalization; insurer alleged suppression of past “angina” episodes.
Issues:
1. Whether suppression of material facts vitiates the contract; 2. Construction of exemption clauses.
Judgment:
Applied contra proferentem, held non-disclosure must go to the root of risk.
Outcome:
Claim admitted, insurer directed to pay, reinforcing insured protection.
Deeper Analysis:
Principle: Emphasized strict construction of exemption clauses against insurers. Doctrinal Significance:
Refined the test of materiality in insured disclosures. Policy Impact: Insurers to tighten disclosure
protocols; IRDAI may prescribe clearer standards. Open Questions: Determining “root of risk” in
complex cases; potential surge in claim challenges.
2. Maitreya Doshi vs. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd.
Background:
Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. granted an unsecured loan; on default, filed two Section 7 petitions
under IBC against debtor and guarantor.
Facts:
Loan of ■8.35 crore; parallel petitions on identical debt.
Issues:
1. Validity of multiple petitions; 2. Definition of “debt” under IBC.
Judgment:
Parallel petitions impermissible; debt includes principal and interest.
Outcome:
One petition to be withdrawn; streamlined insolvency proceedings.
Deeper Analysis:
Principle: Reinforced single petition rule to prevent abuse. Doctrinal Significance: Clarified “debt”
definition under Section 3(11) IBC. Policy Impact: Creditors must coordinate internal filings; reduced
tribunal burden. Open Questions: Applicability to operational creditor claims; cross-border proceedings.
3. Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India & Ors.
Background:
Bank broke open locker without valid notice, lost contents worth lakhs; customer claimed
compensation.
Facts:
Locker agreement; non-adherence to RBI procedures.
Issues:
1. Consumer forum jurisdiction; 2. Bank’s duty of care.
Judgment:
Locker services are “service” under CPA; bank must follow RBI guidelines.
Outcome:
■5 lakhs compensation; clarified bank’s procedural obligations.
Deeper Analysis:
Principle: Broadened CPA scope to cover bank locker services. Doctrinal Significance: Recognized
bank’s fiduciary-like duties. Policy Impact: Banks to ensure transparent locker termination; RBI to refine
guidelines. Open Questions: Interaction with criminal-law defences; extension to other custodial
services.
4. PTC India Financial Services Ltd vs. Venkateswarlu Kari & Ors.
Background:
PIFSL extended finance against demat share pledges; borrower defaulted; enforcement contested.
Facts:
Demat pledge via CDSL; borrower challenged notice.
Issues:
1. Interaction between Depositories Act and Contract Act; 2. Validity of e-notice.
Judgment:
Depositories Act procedure governs; e-notices valid.
Outcome:
PIFSL allowed sale of pledged shares; clarified demat pledge enforcement.
Deeper Analysis:
Principle: Statutory demat pledges require no additional formality. Doctrinal Significance: Advanced
digital securities enforcement framework. Policy Impact: Single protocol for share collateral;
standardized e-notice procedures. Open Questions: Applicability to other dematerialized assets;
cross-depository enforcement.
5. Parkash Devi vs. Rajinder Kumar & Ors.
Background:
GPoA granted by Rajinder to Devi; after his death, Devi continued transactions; heirs challenged.
Facts:
GPoA from 2005; transactions post-2016.
Issues:
1. Agency termination on principal’s death; 2. Section 202 ICA.
Judgment:
Agency coupled with interest survives death.
Outcome:
GPoA held valid; reaffirmed Section 202 scope.
Deeper Analysis:
Principle: Agency with interest not terminated by death. Doctrinal Significance: Tied to established
precedents on agent’s proprietary interest. Policy Impact: More precise GPoA drafting; possible
registrar disclosures. Open Questions: Treatment of hybrid GPoAs; legislative clarity.
6. Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal & Sons Ltd vs. Government of
Hyderabad
Background:
Supply contract with Hyderabad Government pre-accession; dispute post-annexation.
Facts:
Contract from 1947; political change in 1948.
Issues:
1. Effect of state succession on contracts.
Judgment:
Successor state bound by pre-accession obligations.
Outcome:
Contract enforceable; set precedent on state succession doctrines.
Deeper Analysis:
Principle: Continuity of public contracts through state succession. Doctrinal Significance: Anchored
successor state obligations in domestic law. Policy Impact: Contractor confidence in transitional
regimes; state accountability. Open Questions: Indemnity clauses vs. succession; quasi-sovereign
entity contracts.
7. Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi &
Anr.
Background:
Post-dated cheques dishonoured; dispute over retrospective application of NI Act amendment.
Facts:
Cheques from 2014; Section 148 NI Act inserted in 2018.
Issues:
1. Retrospective effect of amendments.
Judgment:
Clear legislative intent warranted retrospective application.
Outcome:
Amendment applied to pending cases; clarified retrospective operation.
Deeper Analysis:
Principle: Express retrospective clauses bind ongoing litigation. Doctrinal Significance: Reaffirmed
statutory amendment application standards. Policy Impact: Heightened litigant awareness of
amendment windows. Open Questions: Impact on multiple pending appeals; sunset clauses for
retrospective amendments.
8. K. Narendra vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd.
Background:
Cooperative society sued developer for delayed amenities.
Facts:
Flats undelivered by 1988; amenities incomplete by 1990.
Issues:
1. Time-is-of-the-essence; 2. Measure of damages.
Judgment:
Delay fundamental breach; damages awarded.
Outcome:
Directed completion and compensation; reinforced timely delivery in construction.
Deeper Analysis:
Principle: Declared timely delivery a condition in construction contracts. Doctrinal Significance:
Extended “time-is-of-the-essence” to real estate. Policy Impact: Developers to include clear timelines;
RERA may cite this for delay penalties. Open Questions: Reasonable extensions in force majeure;
statutory codification.
