Latest news with #DhananjayMahapatra
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Time of India
Insurance co not bound to pay for death of person driving rashly, rules SC
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday said insurance companies are not bound to pay compensation to the kin of drivers who die due to their own mistake during daredevil stunts or on account of rash and negligent driving, in an extreme message to speed addicts and those who seek to hog eyeballs by performing stunts, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to give relief to the wife, son and parents of a man who died while driving a car at high speed in a rash and negligent act which ended with the vehicle toppling over. Complainant drove rashly, broke rules before car toppled Dismissing the claim petition of his kin, who demanded Rs 80 lakh as compensation from United India Insurance Company, the bench said that family members cannot demand an insurance payout when death is caused due to a mistake on part of the deceased without involvement of any extraneous factors. The SC upheld the decision of Karnataka HC on Nov 23 last year rejecting their claim for compensation. On June 18, 2014, one N S Ravisha was driving a Fiat Linea from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town, with his father, sister and her children as co-passengers. He drove rashly and at a high speed and broke traffic rules before losing control of the vehicle near Mylanahalli gate, Arasikere. The car toppled over and rolled on the road. Ravisha succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. His wife, son and parents claimed compensation of Rs 80 lakh on the grounds that he was a busy contractor earning Rs 3 lakh per month. The police filed a chargesheet claiming that the accident occurred because of Ravisha's rash and negligent driving. The Motor Accident Tribunal rejected the family's claim. Hearing an appeal, Karnataka HC rejected the claim of Ravisha's kin that the accident was caused due to a tyre burst and said, "when a claim is made by legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving and it would also be necessary to prove that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as to make the insurance company liable to make payment to the legal heirs. " The court added, "In the instant case, admittedly the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and he being a self-tortfeasor, the legal heirs cannot claim any compensation for his death".
Time of India
25-06-2025
- Time of India
Typo in bail order keeps man in jail for a month; SC summons officials
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday fumed at the Ghaziabad jail superintendent refusing to release a Muslim man, who converted to Hinduism to marry but got booked under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, for a typographical error in the apex court's order granting him bail, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. The SC on April 29 granted bail to Aftab, who voluntarily converted to Hinduism by performing rituals at an Arya Samaj Mandir at Tis Hazari and married a Hindu girl according to Hindu rites. The girl's aunt had lodged a missing person complaint when she eloped with Aftab.
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Govt on Waqf Act in SC: Proof of being Muslim in sync with Sharia
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the ambit, contours and necessity of an interim order after arguments over three days between the Centre and petitioners for and against the validity of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. Responding to the petitioners' objection to the provision that only a practising Muslim for five years could dedicate properties for waqf, SG Tushar Mehta said it was in sync with the requirement of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. No mention of 'waqf by user' term in 1923 Act: Raj govt to SC Given the widespread misuse of waqf properties and their usurpation for personal purposes noted from 1870s, registration of waqf properties, including 'waqf by user', needed to be mandatorily registered under the 1923 and 1995 Waqf Acts, he said. Mehta said a person could be governed by the 1937 Act only if he satisfied the prescribed authority that he was a Muslim and filled a form before that authority declaring that he desired to follow Sharia law and be governed by its provisions - ranging from marriage to waqfs. "So, what is the problem in the new law asking a person to be mandatorily a Muslim for the purpose of making a waqf?" he asked. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, supported by A M Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan and Huzefa Ahmadi, said the way the new waqf law was drafted, it would allow govt to take over 'waqf by user' properties, which were not registered for decades because of fault of state govts, an eventuality which would result in punishing the community for no fault of its. Sibal said waqf was part of zakat, one of the 5 cardinal principles intrinsic to Islam. "Waqf was purely religious, and no authority could interfere in this as the Constitution guarantees that every religious denomination has the absolute right to manage its religious institutions, which in this case is waqf," he added. Appearing for Rajasthan, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said 'waqf by user' was a term evolved by Privy Council and did not find mention in the 1923 Waqf Act. There was no dedication to Allah in case of 'waqf by user', he said. For ST Muslim organisation, Odisha, and a waqf board, senior advocates Ranjit Kumar, Maninder Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan supported Centre's stand. An advocate brought to the court's notice that in Tamil Nadu's Tiruchendurai, its 1,500-year-old Chola-era temple and the surrounding area had been declared waqf property by TN waqf board. She said the board's claim was met with resistance from villagers, who were unable to sell their land without the board's approval. She said the new law would curb such practices.
