Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from February, 2016

Employee entitled for backwages if conviction set aside

The Madras High Court has ruled that an employee removed from service due to conviction in a corruption case by the trial court is entitled for back wages if he wins his appeal in an appellate court. Besides if the employee wins the appeal on merit, he is entitled for continuity of service also, justices S Manikumar and C T Selvamof the Madurai bench said, dismissing a writ appeal by Executive Officer of Mamsapuram Panchayat against a single judge's 2013 order to reinstate an employee who was dismissed in 2008. The principle of "no work, no pay" cannot be applied in every case. Every employee reinstated in service on acquittal cannot be denied back wages and continuity of service. Once the conviction is set aside by an appellate court, the stigma is removed, the judges said. The employee should be restored to his original position as if he was not removed and continued to be in service all along, the Judges said. They disagreed with the Executive Officer's con

Prosecution case cannot be doubted merely on the ground of absence of Independent witness

The Supreme Court, in Nagabhushanammal (D) by LRS. Vs. C. Chandikeswaralingam, has put an end to five decade long property dispute between members of a family who, upon the direction of the court, finally agreed for a reasonable settlement. Bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman held that an earlier suit for possession does not bar institution of a later suit for partition and it is not hit by Principle of Res Judicata. In this case, the trial court held that the suit for partition was hit by the principle of res judicata in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit for possession. The Appellate court had reversed the finding holding that the suit is not hit by Res Judicata. The Apex court observed that the suit filed by the plaintiff in 1962, based on the settlement deed executed by her husband in her favour and the sufferance of the dismissal of the suit, will not, in any way, be a bar for making a claim for her share, if any, of the family property, if otherwise

Complaint against termination also maintainable in the place where termination orccurred

Supreme Court has, in Nandram vs. M/s Garware Polyster Ltd., held that a complaint against termination of an employee of a company is not only maintainable in a Labour court having jurisdiction of the place where the employee was working, when the termination was ordered, but also the Labour court having jurisdiction of the place where the decision to terminate the employee was taken by the management of Company. In this case, the employee who was initially employed by the company in Aurangabad was later transferred to the company plant in Pondicherry where he was given termination order. He complained before the Labour court which held the complaint as maintainable. But the Industrial Tribunal on revision and later the High Court held that the Labour court at Aurangabad has no jurisdiction. The employee then approached the Apex Court. In a very short judgment, the bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman observed “The undisputed position is that the appellant was employed by t

Callous conduct of officials of a PSU is ‘misfeasance in public office’

In a landmark pronouncement of the Delhi High Court, a Division Bench of Justice Gita Mittal & Justice PS Teji has dismissed an appeal filed by The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of UP Ltd (PICUP) holding it as being”completely devoid of factual or legal merit.” Briefly, a property was mortgaged with PICUP by M/s Pacquik Industries Ltd. Another creditor of Pacquik Industries, one Sh. Darshan Khurana offered to make the payment of the OTS amount of about Rs. 2.20 Crores, on the behalf of Pacquik Industries to PICUP to have the title deeds of the property released to him to secure his interest. This request of Pacquik and Sh. Darshan Khurana was conveyed to PICUP vide letters, courier and facsimile communication. The management of PICUP, internally, objected to the title deeds being released to a third party, however chose to remain silent and accepted the amount, instead of conveying their decision either to Pacquik or Sh. Darshan Khurana. The entire hierarchy of

Place of accessing web based communication does not create jurisdiction

The Kerala High Court in G. Madhavan Nair v Union of India & others (W.P(c) No:30342 of 2014) has ruled that Kerala High Court cannot assume Jurisdiction, based on the mere fact  that the alleged cause of action was communicated  through website and it was accessed in Kerala. The petitioner  an eminent Scientist, who had  worked in the Department of Space from its very inception in the year 1972 and has headed the Indian Space Research Organisation [for brevity“ISRO”] as its Chairman for about half-a-dozen years had approached the High Court impugning orders passed by the respondents black listing  him from undertaking  any future Government assignment. Petitioner challenged these orders ;before the High Court Of Kerala  trying to take cue from Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 which permitted a  High Court to issue directions,orders or writs to any Government , authority or person who resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court , in cases where t

Money demanded to run business is not dowry: Madras High Court

Disposing of a dowry harassment petition, Justice C T Selvam of the Madurai bench on Wednesday said money demanded by a person from his wife and in-laws for investing in business cannot be construed as dowry demand and tried under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  He said it was necessary for a complainant to prove that money was demanded only as dowry. The Judge accepted the petitioner's submission that money had been demanded for conduct of business, but that the same was not demanded as dowry. Such a demand for money for conduct of business would attract IPC Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), the judge said and ordered that the petitioners be prosecuted under this provision, apart from IPC Sec. 506(I) (criminal intimidation). The Judge exonerated the complainant's father-in-law, saying he was in no way connected with the case. He directed the Judicial Magistrate in Tiruchirapalli, where the case was filed i

Dismissed staff entitled to encashment of EL/PL: HC

Employees dismissed from service after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them are also entitled to encashment of ‘Earned/Privilege Leave’ that they had accumulated to their credit over the years, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled. Justice D. Hariparanthaman passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by the dismissed General Manager of Thanjavur District Central Cooperative Bank since he was denied the benefit on the ground that it would be accorded only to those who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judge came to the conclusion after taking a cue from a decision rendered by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on November 9, 2012 wherein it was held that employees can encash their earned leave on the day of retirement irrespective of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. “The reason given by the Full Bench is that Earned Leave encashment is a right equal to the right to property

Multiplex fined Rs. 5 lacs for charging above MRP

While dismissing a revision petition filed by a multiplex in Jaipur challenging the orders of District Forum and Rajasthan Consumer Commission, vide which the multiplex was directed to return the amount charged more than maximum retail price of packaged drinking water to the Complainant along with Rs 6,500 as compensation, NCDRC also imposed further costs of Rs five lakh upon the multiplex. Earlier, the complainant went to see a movie in Big Cinemas in Jaipur where he purchased a bottle of water for which he was charged Rs 30 whereas the MRP of the bottle was Rs 16. Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2016/02/22/costs-of-five-lakh-imposed-upon-big-cinemas-and-reliance-media-works-ltd-for-charging-more-than-mrp-of-packaged-drinking-water/

Claim rejection due to delay in intimation upheld by NCRDC

While observing that the theft of a vehicle is required to be reported to the insurance company immediately after the theft is detected otherwise the insurer is not liable to reimburse the insured for such a loss, NCDRC upheld the repudiation of insurance claim by insurance companies in two separate cases of theft of vehicle. This order was pronounced by the Commission during the hearing of two revision petitions. Subject matter of both the petitions was similar i.e. theft of vehicle and repudiation of claim by insurance companies on the ground of delay in intimation of the theft to the insurance company. In one case complainant purchased a truck dumper and got the same insured with the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 10.10.2010 to 09.10.2011. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen between 06.6.2011 to 07.6.2011 and a report with the concerned police station was lodged on 07.6.2011 itself. The intimation to the insurance company h

Non-resident Indians can also purchase house in India

“It cannot be made a ‘rule of thumb’ that every NRI cannot own a property in India. NRIs do come to India, every now and then. Most of the NRIs have to return to their native land. Each NRI wants a house in India.  He is an independent person and can purchase any house in India, in his own name,” observed NCDRC while directing Supertech Ltd to pay around Rs 64 lakh to two NRIs for denying possession of a flat in Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh. Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2016/02/16/non-resident-indians-can-also-purchase-house-in-india/

Not wearing of helmet cannot be the reason for fixing negligence in accident

KOCHI: Non-wearing of helmet cannot be the reason for fixing negligence on the part of a motorcycle rider in the event of an accident, the Kerala High Court has held. While not wearing a helmet is an offence under Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be the basis for fixing negligence on the part of the rider, a division bench comprising justices PR Ramachandra Menon and Anil K Narendran held. The court considered an appeal filed by PJ Jose of Vadakkekkaran in Kottayam seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs4.76 lakh as the compensation for the death of his son when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a jeep on May 11, 2007. A motor accident tribunal had fixed 25 per cent contributory negligence on the part of the rider citing non-wearing of helmet. Ruling against such fixing of negligence, the judgment authored by justice Ramachandra Menon said, "We find it difficult to agree with the proposition that non-wearing of 'Helmet', though an offence under the relevant

A person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him : Madras HC Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/a-person-who-enjoyed-the-benefit-of-an-interim-order-is-liable-to-compensate-the-other-party-when-the-main-case-is-decided-against-him-madras-hc/

Madras High Court has observed that a person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him. Division Bench comprising of Justices V.Ramasubramanian and N.Kirubakaran made this observation in S.Ramesh vs. M/s.Cethar Ltd. The writ petition seeking police protection, filed by Management of a company was allowed, by a final order by single bench subject to the condition that the total amount of around Rs.80, 00,000/-, available partly with the Indian Bank and available partly with the Advocate commissioner shall be disbursed to the 130 permanent employees of the company with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Union. The Single Judge also held that the workers have no right to take the law into their hands and obstruct the goods being taken out, thereby infringing the rights of third party customers.  The police was also directed to give protection to the management to remove the materials. Aggrieve

Registration of FIR mandatory when a Magistrate orders investigation U/S 156(3) of CrPC

A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has reiterated that to enable the police to start investigation, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an F.I.R. and even where a Magistrate does not do so in explicit words but directs for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, the police should register an F.I.R. The Bench comprising of Justices M.Y.Eqbal and Shiva Kirti Singh, relied on a two Judge Bench Judgment of Supreme Court in Mohd. Yousuf versus Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another and held as follows; This Court explained that registration of an F.I.R. involves only the process of recording the substance of information relating to commission of any cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the concerned police station. In paragraph 11 of the aforementioned case, the law was further elucidated by pointing out that to enable the police to start investigation, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an F.I.R. and even wher

SARFEASI not superior to Rent Act

Tenants protected from creditors In a judgment that grants relief to tenants, the Supreme Court has declared that the provisions of the Securitisation Act (Sarfaesi) cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court, while setting aside judgments in several cases of the Bombay High Court, underlined that the Rent Control Act is a social welfare legislation and must be construed as such. In the case, Vishal Kalsaria vs Bank of India, the court further explained that while Sarfaesi is concerned with non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions, the Rent Control Act governs the relationship between a tenant and the landlord and specifies the rules of ejectment with respect to tenants. The banks had proceeded to take possession of the properties of landlords, who had defaulted on payments for the loans taken by mortgaging the properties. The tenants were caught in between. "If the contentions of the banks are to be accepted,"

Meaning of 'grocery' extended

The term 'grocery' would include soft drinks and bottled water, not merely food items, the Supreme Court stated extending the meaning of the word grocery. This interpretation would benefit manual labourers in Maharashtra, as the court has dismissed the appeal, PepsiCo India Holding P Ltd vs Grocery Market & Shops Board, against the Bombay high court judgment. The loaders got only wages and were deprived of provident fund contribution, paid holidays, house rent, workmen's compensation, bonus and other medical benefits. It was to protect such workers that the welfare legislation titled Maharashtra Manual Workers Welfare Act and a scheme were introduced. When the authorities applied the law to PepsiCo, which produces soft drinks like Pepsi, Mirinda, 7 Up and mineral water, it objected to it and moved the Bombay high court. PepsiCo's argument was that the expression grocery would only comprise articles, which are required as daily necessities such as oil and grain in ho

Guarantee can only be invoked against legal representatives

The debt recovery tribunal and the appellate tribunal "misdirected themselves" by pursuing the grandchildren of a guarantor when there was no evidence that they had inherited the estate of the guarantor, the Delhi High Court stated last week in the case, Rohini Kanoi vs Allahabad Bank. In this case, a firm took loan from Allahabad Bank which was not repaid. The bank took the firm and the guarantors to the tribunal. Since one guarantor had died, his grandchildren were also made parties by the tribunal. They challenged their impleadment, that too after ten years. The high court stated that the tribunal could not make the grandchildren suffer the trial on a "bald assertion", after a long delay, that the bank had learnt that they had inherited the estate of the guarantor.

Negligent worker too gets damages

Death or injury resulting from negligence of a worker in the course of employment is no reason to deny compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, the Supreme Court asserted in the case, Jaya Biswal vs IFFCO Tokio General Insurance. Negligence is a factor under the Motor Vehicles Act, but not relevant in the Employees Compensation Act. In this case, a young truck driver died in an accident. His dependants approached the Commissioner of Compensation. He awarded Rs 10.75 lakh. The insurance company appealed to the Odisha high court. It reduced the compensation by half, "in the interest of justice". The parents appealed to the Supreme Court. It castigated the high court for reducing the amount by merely claiming that it was in the interest of justice. The apex court awarded Rs 11 lakh with 12 per cent interest. Moreover, the court stated that "in light of the unnecessary litigation and hardship of the dependants in spending on litigation to get the compensation we de

Cheques issued as security are not ornamental

The question whether cheques that bounced were issued in discharge of a debt/liability or it was only a security resurfaced in the Supreme Court in its judgment, Don Ayengia vs State of Assam. In this case, two parties agreed on building a multi-storied tower but later terminated the project. Don had given Rs 10 lakh to the other partner and he wanted it back. The partner issued a promissory note offering to pay the amount in a month. He also issued five cheques as 'security'. The payment was not made on time and the cheques were tendered to the bank, which rejected them due to 'insufficiency of funds'. Don prosecuted his partner and the trial court sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and imposed compensation of Rs 12 lakh. On appeal, the district court changed the order to a fine of Rs 2,000 and payment of Rs 12 lakh. The Gauhati high court set aside all these orders maintaining that the payment was as security. Therefore, Don appealed to the Supreme Court. I

Internet - Section 144 - Unlawful assembly - Ban - Concurrent Power

SC upholds banning mobile internet to maintain peace There is nothing wrong in banning mobile internet to maintain law and order, the Supreme Court said Thursday finding no fault with the Gujarat government’s decision during the Patidar agitation in the state. “There can be such ban for law and order,” said a bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice R Bhanumathi while upholding the Gujarat high court’s verdict that had declared the ban was right. The Supreme Court’s decision came on an appeal filed by Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas who had challenged the High Court verdict. The ban was imposed under section 144 of the criminal procedure code, notified by the police when it apprehends a law and order problem. The prohibitory orders prevent an unlawful assembly. The petitioner’s lawyer, Apar Gupta, argued the ban under the CrPc was untenable. He contended there was a special law--the Telegraph Act--to deal with such situations. A special law will override the general statue and so the

Non wearing of helmet at the time of accident does not amount to ‘contributory negligence’

A Division Bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon and Justice Anil.K Narendran in P.J. Jose & Ors. v. Vanchankal Niyas & Ors [M.A.C.A.No. 2482 of 2009] has held that an accident arising out of non wearing of helmet does not lead to an inference to the case of contributory negligence on the part of the person causing accident, so as to limit his claims arising out of such accident. The deceased, who was a student in Coimbatore met with an accident on 11/05/2007, while travelling in his motor cycle. The accident occurred due to the collision of the motor cycle driven by the deceased with a jeep owned, driven, and insured by respondents 1 to 3 respectively. The deceased died due to the fatal injuries arising out of the accident on the same date. In the claim filed before the tribunal by his legal heirs, his claim was limited by the tribunal due to the fact that he had not put on a helmet at the time of accident and this would result in contributory

Women abusing law to silence in-laws: Court

A trial court has expressed concern over laws for protection of women being "blatantly abused and misused" against the in-laws. The court made the observations while granting relief of possession of property to a 70-year-old widowed woman who had accused her estranged daughter-in-law of illegally entering and staying in her house. "The case reflects the manner in which the special laws for protection of women are being blatantly abused and misused only to silence the in-laws. Courts cannot permit such an abuse. Needless to say, courts of law would certainly and effectively step in for redressal to stop this inappropriate and illegal conduct," Additional District Judge Kamini Lau said. Giving relief to the septuagenarian, the court ordered the daughter-in-law and her two children, who are major, to peacefully vacate the property in Shastri Nagar within six months. The plaintiff had approached court seeking "a decree of permanent injunction by restraining her d

Hotel fined Rs 1.5 lakh for charging Rs 5 above MRP costs

The apex consumer forum has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1.56 lakh on a Gujarat-based hotel for charging customers Rs 5.5 above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a soft drink. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) imposed the cost reiterating earlier judicial rulings barring hotels and eateries from charging above the MRP. The ruling came on a petition filed by a Bharuch-based hotel Nyay Mandir, which challenged the Gujarat State Commission's order to pay Rs 6,000 as compensation to complainant Ishwar Lal Jinabhai Desai, who had approached the forum for having been charged Rs 18 for beverage 'Miranda', despite its MRP being only Rs 12.50. Asking the hotel to pay Rs 6,000 to the complainant, the forum ordered the hotel to pay an additional Rs 1.50 lakh to the consumer welfare fund. The hotel opposed Desai's plea contending that it took the additional amount as service charges for various facilities accorded to its customers. Not impress

Prosecution for Corruption (PC Act) against Officials of Private Bank is maintainable as they are deemed Public Servants; SC

Supreme Court Today delivered a landmark Judgment holding that Chairman, Directors and Officers of Global Trust Bank Ltd. (a private bank before its amalgamation with the Oriental Bank of Commerce), can be said to be public servants for the purposes of their prosecution in respect of offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Two Judge Bench held that by virtue of the provisions of Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 prosecutions launched against the accused officials are maintainable in law. As per Clause (viii) contained in Section 2(c) of P.C. Act, 1988 a person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty, is a public servant. In this Case the Court has examined as to whether the chairman/managing director or executive director of a private bank operating under licence issued by RBI under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, held/holds an office and performed /performs public duty so as to attract the def

ENDORSEMENT BY AN ADVOCATE WHO HAS NO VAKALATH

Important Legal Question raised in this Second Appeal The authority of a counsel, who does not hold a vakalath for the party, to make an endorsement on the plaint that the party-defendant has no objection in decreeing the suit as prayed for? Whether a decree passed pursuant to such an endorsement is amenable to appeal under Section 96 CPC? Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the relevant provision is Order 3 Rule 4. It reads as follows: “Rule 4. Appointment of pleader: Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala Rule 17 in the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 Referred Cases on Vakalath & Compromise A suit The Kerala High Court in M/s. Manuel Sons Financial Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Ramakrishnan judgment dated 20 May 2015 held that “a decree passed in a case on the basis of an endorsement by an Advocate, who has no vakalath in the case, cannot be said to be a consent decree”. Justice A. Hariprasad also held that “the challenge raised against a decree, alleging that it is n

CASE DIARY; IMPORTANCE & RELEVANCE

1. Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commr. of Police (1983) 3 SCC 344 2. Queen Empress Vs. Mannu ILR (1897) 19 All 390 3. Khatri Vs. State of Bihar (1981) 2 SCC 493 4. Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 5. C. Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 6. Ganga Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2013) 7 SCC 278 7. Surjit Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 2 SCC 146 Section 172 Cr.P.C. mandates writing and maintenance of the case diary. Sub-section (1) stipulates that police officer making investigation shall, on each day, enter proceedings relating to investigation in the diary including the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him and a statement of circumstances ascertained during his investigation, i.e. record of the proceedings. There were judgments that hold that `record of proceedings’ would not include statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., for the reason that the said statements are not protected, whereas t

DISTINCTION BETWEEN NECESSARY & PROPER PARTY

Who is Necessary to Proper Party Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to. National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922, distinguished. Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit. Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party. The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him.

Public Service Commissions within RTI ambit

The Supreme Court today upheld a decision of the Kerala High Court which had held that the Public Service Commissions (PSC) are within the purview of the RTI Act and are bound to provide scanned copies of answer sheets of the written test, copy of the tabulation sheet and other information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices MY Eqbal and Arun Mishra. The Kerala High Court in its judgment delivered on March 9, 2011, had held that the RTI Act will apply to State Information Commissions. In the process, the High Court had turned down the contention that the concept of “information” for the purpose of the RTI Act  has to be restricted to such information falling within the ambit of fundamental right to information as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a). The High Court had consequently, directed the PSC to provide answer sheets and details of interview

ANTICIPATORY BAIL; WHETHER APPLICABLE IF THE OFFENCE IS BAILABLE

The Supreme Court of India in R.K. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1998 SC 530 : 1997 (6) Suppl.SCR 153 : (1998) 1 SCC 474 : 1997 (7) SCALE 442 : JT 1997 (9) SC 709 : 1998 (2) ALD (Cri) 113 : 1998 (1) ALT (Cri) 107 : [1998] 92 Comp Cas 14 (SC) : 1998 CriLJ 848 : 1997 (4) Crimes 388 (SC) held that the question of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not applicable if the offence is bailable. A bench comprising of M.K. Mukharji and K.T. Thomas, JJ. observed that the question of granting anticipatory bail does not arise since offence under S. 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is bailable. # Anticipatory Bail Officers of a Company met some leaders of an unlawful association including United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), negotiated with them in connection with their various demands including ransom demands. Case Diary revealed that the Company had funded the said unlawful association and the Officers had a role to