Page 16 - BANKING FINANCE APRIL 2017
P. 16
LEGAL UPDATE
LEGAL
SC criticises low compensation on Motor Accident
Supreme Court further
clarifies Sarfaesi rule claims
The Supreme Court has expressed its sortium (help, affection and sexual re-
The Supreme Court has clarified the
"shock" and "surprise" at the low com- lation), the Supreme Court raised the
procedure
pensation settled by the Motor amount to Rs 1 lakh.
to be fol-
Accident Claims tribunal
lowed by se- The calculation of dam-
and the Andhra
cured credi- ages for 'future pros-
Pradesh High Court
tors while pects' (promotions,
after applying
pursuing its increments, etc.)
wrong principles in
rights under the security Interest (En- has differed among
a road death.
forcement) Rules against a defaulting, different benches of
a borrower and his guarantors. The person died at 52. The Tribunal cal- the court and was referred to a large
culated compensation assuming 6 bench 3 years ago. A large number of
While quashing the judgement of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in the years as his earning age, which was cases dealing with loss of future pros-
raised to 8 by the High Court. Revising pects are waiting the final decision.
case, Canara Bank Vs Amarender, it
the estimate to 11 years in its judge- When the new bench decides the ques-
stated that it is permissible to simul-
ment, Bogireddi Vs Mani Muthupandi, tion, all of these claimants have to ap-
taneously issue notice to the bor-
the apex court criticised the courts proach the court again for recalcula-
rower about the intension to sell
below for ignoring the principles laid tion of the total compensation. Cur-
mortgaged property and issue a pub-
down by it for computing compensa- rently, the awards are interim and do
lic notice in newspapers about the
tion. While the High Court had granted not take into consideration claims for
proposed auction.
Rs 15,000 to the widow for loss of con- loss of future prospects.
The High Court had held a separate
notice with a gap of 30 days notice Mallya asks SC to help revive settlement plan
was required and simultaneous no-
Vijay Mallya has appealed to the Supreme Court to help revive his attempt to reach
tice to the burrower and notice of a one-time settlement with creditors owed in excess of Rs 9,000
public e-auction was against the rules
crore by his defunct Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. In April 2016, lenders
passed under the Sarfaesi Act. The
led by SBI rejected Mallya's offer of Rs 4,000 crore in a one-time
Supreme Court stated there was no
settlement. Mallya left for the UK in March 2016 as lenders and
need to wait for 30 days to sell the
investigating agencies closed in on him following his $75 million
secured asset.
sweetheart deal with Diageo Plc. to quit as chairman of United Spirits Ltd.
16 | 2017 | APRIL | BANKING FINANCE
Insurance Training Centre © Call 09883398055 / 09883380339
