An insurance policy covered ?burglary? and ?house breaking?, which, according to the policy, means theft from the premises involving force, assault, violence or threat thereof. The partner of a firm filed claim when he found that goods were stolen from his godown. The insurance company contended that theft is not covered by the policy. The Supreme Court held that although in terms of definition ?burglary? involves theft, it must be preceded by force and violence. The Supreme Court further observed that the insurance company should suitably amend the terms of the policy to make it more meaningful and viable to the public (United Assurance Co. vs Harchand Rai).

The mother of a minor remarried following the death of her husband. The child?s paternal grandparents refused to hand over custody of the child. The Gujarat High Court held that while the grandparents are bound to have love and affection for the child, that alone cannot decide the question of custody. The mother is entitled to the guardianship of the child and there was nothing on record to prove that she is negligent towards the welfare of her ward (Chetnaben vs Natwarlal Foolshanker Joshi).

A cheque issued by one of joint account-holders was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The complainant filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act against both the account- holders. The magistrate took cognisance of the matter. The Kerala High Court held inter alia that the mere fact that the account can be operated jointly cannot invite culpable liability under Section 138 of the Act against someone who is not the drawer but only a joint account-holder (Devi vs Haridas).

SOLON