The Allahabad High Court has ruled that nominees of the insurance policy are not the rightful owners of the policy proceeds, reaffirming that succession laws will prevail.

The court clarified that Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act only enables nominees to receive the sum, not claim ownership, and does not override inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act.

The case arose after a woman, nominated in her deceased daughter’s insurance policy, was opposed by the son-in-law.

The Court noted conflicting views among High Courts and emphasised that nomination only facilitates receipt, not ownership. Given national importance, the Court allowed the appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A of the Constitution.

The Reserve Bank of India has introduced new cheque bounce guidelines to address delays, repeat defaults, and legal backlogs, while ensuring fairness and early resolution.

Banks are not required to notify customers within 24 hours of a cheque bounce, and habitual defaulters may face account freezes and red flag alerts across the banking system. Penalties have also been standardized to eliminate discrepancies.

The RBI discourages cheque book bans and encourages early resolution through pre-legal mediation, particularly in cases of stop-payment or signature mismatches.

While cheque bounce remains a criminal offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the reforms focus on faster processes, digital tools, and enhanced customer transparency.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Lok Adalat awards in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are executable as civil court decrees.

A petitioner, directed to pay ₹5 lakh, faced an execution petition and was ordered to undergo three months of civil imprisonment after defaulting. Challenging the order, the petitioner sought revision, but the High Court dismissed the plea.

The court relied on Supreme Court judgments in K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji and others, affirming that such awards are binding and enforceable through civil courts as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 

The Bombay HC ruled that amounts received under a medical insurance policy cannot be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act).

A three-judge bench held that compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act is statutory, while medical claim benefits are contractual and independent.

The case involved a claimant awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for accident-related medical expenses. The insurance company argued for deduction, claiming double compensation.

The Court rejected this, stating that tortfeasors cannot benefit from a claimant’s insurance foresight. Citing SC precedents, the Court emphasized the principle of just compensation and remanded the matter to a single judge for further consideration.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a 'hamali' (loader) is not a gratuitous passenger but qualifies as a 'third party' under Section 145(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

This decision arose from the case of B. Ramanjaneyulu, a hamali who died after falling from a trailer while transporting gravel. His family was awarded compensation by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.

The insurance company contested this, arguing that no premium was paid for the deceased.

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the 2019 amendment to the Act, which includes co-workers on transport vehicles as 'third parties,' applies retrospectively, thus holding the insurer liable for compensation. 

The Supreme Court ruled that the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act arises only when the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving the demand notice, not upon dishonor of the cheque.

A bench quashed the cheque dishonor case, noting that the cause of action arose after the moratorium under IBC, making the proceedings unsustainable.

The court emphasized that all six conditions under S.138 NI Act must be met for an offense to be constituted, citing Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009).

The High Court of Bombay instructed the RBI to take in old demonetized currency banknotes from petitioners.

A group based in Kolhapur held cash worth ₹20 lakh in ₹500 and ₹1000 banknotes. These notes were seized during an Income Tax raid on 26th December, 2016.

The IT department returned the available cash on January 17, 2017, which was after the deposit deadline.

The RBI denied the deposit due to a lack of serial numbers as required by the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.

The court found that the petitioners were not at fault and so instructed the RBI to take the deposit within a week.

The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition and directed Kotak Mahindra Bank to defreeze the petitioner’s account.

Kotak Mahindra Bank froze the petitioner’s account after a director’s wife requested it during a marital dispute.

The Court held that such action violated Section 22(3) & Section 22(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and RBI regulations.

The Court referred to Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. and decided that private banks serve a public function and can be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226.

Hence, the Court decided that a private bank cannot freeze an account on its own without legal permission.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a truck owner is entitled to an insurance claim even if the national permit authorization fee for interstate movement was unpaid.

It overturned the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) decision, which had denied the claim.

The insurer had rejected the claim for a fire-damaged truck, citing non-payment of the authorization fee. The NCDRC upheld this denial.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that non-payment of such fees does not invalidate the insurance policy.

The Court has directed the insurance company to pay the claim amount along with 9% interest from the date of complaint.

The Supreme Court recently clarified the distinction between two key terms under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It ruled that for a director to be vicariously liable for offences under Section 138 (dishonor of cheques), two conditions must be proven:

Director in charge of the company: The director must have actual involvement in the company’s operations or management, not just a title.

Director responsible to the company: The director must have specific legal or operational responsibility for overseeing the company’s financial matters, indicating direct accountability.

Both conditions must be satisfied for prosecution under Section 141.

The Lucknow Consumer Commission dismissed a fraudulent ₹29 lakh insurance claim for an alleged Mercedes-Benz theft against ICICI Lombard, imposing a ₹10 lakh penalty on the complainant.

Investigations revealed gross negligence. The vehicle was purchased for ₹3.70 lakh, from its previous owner P&G Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. but was insured at an inflated value before being falsely reported stolen.

The court flagged suspicious financial transactions and directed the Crime Branch of Gautam Buddha Nagar to investigate.

The Court ordered that the complainant is required to deposit the penalty in the CM’s Disaster Relief Fund within a month or face recovery proceedings.

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya has approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the debt recovery proceedings against Kingfisher Airlines, claiming that authorities have recovered multiple times the principal debt of ₹6,200 crore.

His plea, filed on February 3, seeks an interim stay on further recovery actions and demands a statement of accounts from nationalized and private sector banks, including SBI and PNB.

Mallya argues that despite banks recovering over twice the ₹6,203 crore debt, they continue to pursue him.

The High Court issued notices to ten banks, a recovery officer, and an asset reconstruction company, seeking their response.

A Magistrate court in Mumbai’s Andheri sentenced filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma to three months of simple imprisonment in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The court directed Varma to pay Rs. 3.72 lakh as compensation to the complainant, a company named Shree, within three months. Failing that, he would face an additional three months of imprisonment.

The case arose after Varma's firm issued two cheques in 2018 for Rs. 2.38 lakh, both of which bounced due to insufficient funds.

Since Varma was absent during the judgment, the court issued a non-bailable warrant against him.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has introduced new rules to protect people from frauds using mobile phones. As digital payments grow, fraudsters misuse mobile numbers for scams.

To prevent this, banks and financial companies must use the Mobile Number Revocation List (MNRL) to track and block fraud-linked accounts.

They must also register customer service numbers on the "Sanchar Saathi" portal and use special number series for calls (1600xx for service, 140xx for promotions).

RBI advises people to register for Do Not Disturb (DND) and report frauds through "Chakshu" or the Cyber Crime Helpline (1930).

The deadline for compliance is March 31, 2025.