If the insured cargo gets damaged when there is a significant deviation from the transportation route, it will not be covered by transit insurance
Presumption of waiver in arbitration
If a party joins arbitration
proceedings without raising objections regarding jurisdiction of the court, it cannot raise the issue at a later stage, especially after the pronouncement of the award. The Supreme Court
stated so in its judgment in Quippo Construction Equipment vs Janardan Nirman. In this case, there were several contracts between the equipment rental company and the infrastructure firm with respect to projects in eastern India. The agreements named New Delhi or Kolkata as venues if arbitration
were be invoked. Disputes arose and the arbitration
award was in Quippo’s favour. Then litigation started over the venue and jurisdiction of the arbitrator. In an appeal against the Calcutta High Court judgment, the apex court stated Janardan let the arbitral proceedings go on without raising objections which concluded in an ex-parte award. Therefore, it could be said to have waived the right to raise any objection concerning jurisdiction.
Transit deviation cancels insurance of cargo
If the insured cargo gets damaged when there is a significant deviation from the transportation route, it will not be covered by transit insurance. The Supreme Court
stated so in its judgement in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance vs State of Madhya Pradesh. The government had bought a helicopter from Canada and its transit in a knocked-down condition was insured. The cargo reached Delhi, the Customs duty was paid, and the buyer took possession of it. During an inspection at the hangar, it was found that a window was broken. The helicopter was assembled and repaired in Delhi to be flown to Bhopal. The government claimed compensation from Bajaj for the repairs, which was repudiated. The National Consumer Commission ordered Bajaj to pay Rs 6,489,205, maintaining that the damage was during transit.On appeal by the insurer, the SC set aside that order. It stated storage of the helicopter in Delhi after paying the Customs duty and taking possession by the buyer ended the transit period. Moreover, it was no longer in a knocked-down condition. “Ordinary course of transit is the period when the cargo is in the course of transportation, and not in the immediate control of the buyer or seller.”
Asserting “zero tolerance towards corruption
should be the top-notch priority”, the Supreme Court
has extended the definition of ‘university’ to cover deemed universities and declared the Prevention of Corruption
Act will cover them, too. Regular universities are already covered by the anti-corruption law. However, the Gujarat High Court ruled in State vs Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai that a deemed university cannot be considered a regular one. The case arose when a medical student was asked to pay Rs 20 lakh to sit in an examination, in addition to the regular fees. One trustee was charged with a criminal offence and he moved the high court, which discharged him from prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed it and asserted the definition of a university in the University Grants Commission Act cannot be imported to the anti-corruption law. The latter is meant to curb corruption. The court held the trustee is a public servant, just as the executives of private banks have been held to be public servants as they perform a public duty.