The insurance company is not liable if the claimant is traveling in an uninsured trailer, regardless of whether the tractor turns out protected :The Supreme Court
Case Title: Dhondubai vs Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725 | CA 5459-5460 OF 2023
Summary
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the adverse possession principle in a recent decision regarding a petition for declaration of title. The adverse possession plea is a combination of law and fact, requiring evidence such as the date, nature, duration, and condition of the possession. The Court emphasized that a person who pleads adverse possession has no equities in their favor, as they are attempting to infringe upon the rights of the rightful owner. Article 65 of the Limitation Act establishes the starting point of limitation in securing an adverse possession order against the defendant. The Court also emphasized the significance of a statute of limitations when initiating a recovery action for property in adverse possession. The implementation of periods of limitation ensures actions are initiated within a specified timeframe, guaranteeing the accessibility of documentary and oral evidence and implementing the maxim “Maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt.”
About the case
In a recent decision regarding a petition for declaration of title, the Supreme Court reaffirmed several critical elements pertaining to the adverse possession principle. The Court reaffirmed that the adverse possession plea is a combination of law and fact. (10 SCC 779, Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, 2004). The individual asserting adverse possession is required to provide the following evidence: (a) the date of his possession, (b) the nature of his possession, (c) whether the other party was aware of the factum of possession, (d) the duration of his possession, and (e) the condition of his possession in terms of being open and undisturbed.
A person who pleads adverse possession has no equities in their favor, the Court further stated. This, the court explained, is due to the fact that the individual desiring such possession is attempting to infringe upon the rights of the rightful owner. In securing an adverse possession order against the defendant, Article 65 of the Limitation Act establishes the starting point of limitation rather than the date the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership (Sark Singh v. Banto, [page number]). In addition, the animus possidendi to retain ownership in exclusion of the actual proprietor and the physical reality of exclusive possession are the most crucial elements that must be considered in adverse possession cases.
The right to access the Court, however, expires after a specified period of time, and the Court emphasized that this principle is contingent on limitation. In addition, the Court emphasized the significance of a statute of limitations when initiating a recovery action for property in adverse possession. 16 SCC 517 (Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009). “In general, contemporary statutes of limitation not only terminate the right to file a lawsuit seeking the restoration of property that has been in the wrongdoer’s adverse possession for a designated period of time, but also confer title on the possessor.” The purpose of these statutes is not to penalize individuals who fail to assert their rights, but rather to safeguard individuals who have possessed property for the designated period of time in accordance with a claim of right or color of title.
The Court also cited Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ESI Corpn. (1971) 2 SCC 860 in support of this. The Court deliberated at length in that document on the purpose of the Limitation Act. “The implementation of periods of limitation is essential to ensure that actions are initiated within a specified timeframe. This serves two purposes: first, to guarantee the accessibility of documentary and oral evidence that the defendant may use to refute the claim against him; and second, to implement the principle that the law does not assist an inactive person who laments over his rights by permitting them to remain dormant when challenged or disputed, without resorting to litigation in a court of law.”
The maxim “Maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt” articulates the guiding principle behind this regulation: “The laws benefit those who are vigilant and not those who are sleepy.” Although, among other things, determining whether the present petition for a declaration of title was time-barred, the Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol rendered these remarks. Given these circumstances, the Court granted the appeal but determined that the lawsuit is not maintainable due to the statute of limitations.
The Delhi High Court orders Acko General Insurance to remove social media posts that feature the ‘Humanity’ mural by St+art India.
Case Title: ST+ART India Foundation & Anr. V. Acko General Insurance
Summary
St+art India, a public art organization, filed a copyright infringement complaint against insurance company Acko General Insurance in the Delhi High Court. The suit ordered Acko to remove its social media posts featuring a mural titled “Humanity.” St+art India claimed ownership of the artistic work and moral rights over the production. The insurance company faced allegations of exploiting the moral for commercial gain through social media posts and billboard advertisements. The court determined that the defendant’s advertisement replicated the mural, and an examination would be necessary to determine whether the conduct constituted fair dealing or fair use. The court issued the order provisionally, allowing St+art India to provide any URLs that serve as direct links to the mural in question.
About the case
St+art India, an organization that works on public art projects, filed a copyright infringement complaint against insurance company Acko General Insurance in the Delhi High Court. The suit ordered the company to remove its social media posts that featured a mural titled “Humanity.” Following the insurance company’s consent to remove social media posts and other online content containing the mural, Justice Prathiba M Singh issued the following directive: “…as a result, the Defendant is obligated to remove the aforementioned listings within a period of 72 hours.”
The Plaintiffs may also provide the Defendant with any URLs that serve as direct links to the mural in question on the Defendant’s posts. “The foregoing shall not prejudice the rights and disputes of either party.” Under Section 2(c)(i) and Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act of 1957, St+art India asserted ownership of the artistic work in its lawsuit. As acknowledged in Section 57 of the statute, the organization additionally claimed moral rights over the production. In accordance with the lawsuit, the mural was jointly produced by an artist and St+art India in accordance with a contractual arrangement, without any third-party licensing of rights.
The insurance company faced allegations that it exploited the morals for commercial gain through social media posts and billboard advertisements. The insurance company’s counsel concluded that the dispute had been resolved as a result of the plaintiff organization’s legal notices and that the insurance company did not anticipate any additional litigation. An additional point was made regarding the removal of the hoarding itself. As part of the lawsuit summonses, Justice Singh noted that the hoarding that incorporated the mural is unmistakably an advertisement and that, despite the insurance company’s confirmation of its removal, the mural continued to persist on online platforms. In accordance with the Copyright Act of 1957, the court noted that a determination is necessary regarding whether the insurance company’s conduct constituted fair dealing.
“In the current instance, it is indisputable that the defendant’s advertisement replicated the mural. It was not possible to assume that the work in question was in the public domain and could be utilized in the manner described by the Defendant. This also applies to advertising, albeit for a social cause, as opposed to simple public discourse. The court stated that in light of the defendant’s use for a commercial purpose, an examination would be necessary to determine whether the conduct constituted fair dealing or fair use. As an additional clarification, the court stated that it had not rendered a verdict on the legal issues at hand and that the order had been issued provisionally, in light of the insurance company’s arguments.
