Daily Judgments of 09 April
Supreme Court of India
C.A. No.-006553-006553 - 2016
Parties: NEHA ENTERPRISES VS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UP
Judge(s): JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL, JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
Area of Law: Tax Law
The Court upheld the disallowance of input tax credit claimed by the appellant dealer on sales made against Form-E to a manufacturer-exporter, which were exempted from tax under Section 7(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The court found that the clear language of Section 13(7) of the Act prohibits the allowance of input tax credit to the dealer on such sales exempted under Section 7(c), even if the intention or policy behind the exemption was to promote exports. The court agreed with the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed the dealer's appeal.
C.A. No.-005131-005131 - 2025
Parties: R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. VS RAJMANI
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Area of Law: Limitation Law
The Court held that the High Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial on the issue of limitation, when the concurrent findings of the lower courts had already held the suit to be barred by limitation.
The Court held that the question of limitation can be a mixed question of law and fact, but in cases where the action is initiated after a significant delay without proper pleadings, it can be treated as a question of law. The courts have a duty under Section 3 of the Limitation Act to dismiss any suit filed after the prescribed period, even if the plea of limitation is not raised by the defendant.
The Court emphasized that procedural laws are meant to assist in the administration of justice and should not be interpreted in a way that forecloses the adjudication of substantial rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, which had dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.
C.A. No.-005132-005132 - 2025
Parties: PRABHJOT KAUR VS THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Labor Law
The Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the private respondent challenging the advertisement no. 14 dated 11.12.2020. The court ruled that once the eligibility criteria is declared in a fresh advertisement, it cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, as per the principles laid down in prior judgments. The court found that the DSP post in the 'SC Sports (Women)' category was correctly reserved as per the 2020 Rules, which mandated 33% reservation for women. The appellant, being the only successful candidate in the 'SC Sports (Women)' category, is entitled to be appointed to the DSP post. The court noted there were contradictory stands taken by government departments which were resolved by the Chief Secretary.
Crl.A. No.-001872-001872 - 2025
Parties: SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE VS ADITYA SARDA
Judge(s): JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI, JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the High Court orders granting anticipatory bail to the respondents were perverse and untenable in law. The Court emphasized that in serious economic offences, anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, and the High Courts should consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously.
The Court set aside the impugned High Court orders granting anticipatory bail and directed the respondents-accused to surrender before the Special Court within one week, while clarifying that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN.-4825/2024
Parties: ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to the Applicants, Anil Kumar Aggarwal and Jagdish Kumar Arora, in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The court held that the prolonged incarceration of the Applicants, coupled with the absence of any real likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, violated their right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found that the delay in the conclusion of the trial, particularly in the scheduled offence case which forms the foundation of the PMLA proceedings, was unreasonable and unjustified.
While the court acknowledged that the prosecution's case appeared prima facie credible, it noted that the evidence relied upon, including the testimony of an approver/accomplice and certain electronic records, required independent corroboration as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court granted bail to the Applicants, subject to certain conditions, to secure their attendance and prevent any tampering of evidence during the pendency of the trial.
W.P.(C)-4017/2025
Parties: ARVIND MISHRA Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the denial of permission for a religious procession on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti. The court held that it is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the police authorities, who denied permission due to security and law and order concerns after a riot incident during the procession in the previous year.
However, the court has provided the petitioner with an opportunity to submit a fresh application with details of the proposed route and duration of the procession, so that the police can consider it and make necessary security arrangements. The court has referred to judgments from other High Courts, which indicate that denial of permission solely on the ground of difficulty in making arrangements is not justified, and the authorities should make efforts to accommodate the request while safeguarding the petitioner's rights under Article 19 of the Constitution.
CS(COMM)-628/2022
Parties: ZHUHAI HANSEN TECHNOLOGY CO LTD Vs AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the recovery suit filed by the plaintiff was based on the Minutes of Meeting (MOM) executed between the parties, which superseded the original contracts and their arbitration clauses. The court found that the MOM was a mutual agreement to "short close" the contracts, comprehensively dealing with all remaining issues and obligations, with the defendant acknowledging its liabilities under the MOM. Considering the intention of the parties and the nature of the settlement, the court concluded that the original contracts, including their arbitration clauses, had been extinguished. The court therefore dismissed the application by the defendant to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
CS(COMM)-677/2023
Parties: CONCEPTUM LOGISTICS INDIA PVT LTD Vs SAMRAJAYA GLOBAL SHIPPING SERVICES
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant seeking unconditional leave to defend the summary suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of over Rs. 4.7 crores. The court held that the defendant's plea of coercion and undue influence in executing the MOU dated 2nd February 2021, where it acknowledged liability of Rs. 2.5 crores, lacks credibility in terms of timing and subsequent conduct. The court found that the defendant failed to establish the existence of a substantial defense or raise bona fide triable issues, and the defense appears to be an afterthought and lacks the substance or genuineness required to merit leave to defend. The court concluded that denial of leave is warranted as the defense is frivolous or vexatious.
BAIL APPLN.-920/2025
Parties: VINOD @ BINNU Vs THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the bail application of the accused, Vinod @ Binnu, who was charged under Sections 302/34 IPC (murder) based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case relied on evidence of "last seen" and recovery of the weapon of offense (a knife) from the accused's possession. The accused's counsel argued that the prosecution's case was false and the knife was planted, but the court was not satisfied with this argument. Considering the nature of the offense and the evidence on record, the High Court did not find it a fit case to release the accused on bail, and accordingly dismissed the bail application.
CM(M)-736/2019
Parties: M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD Vs M/S SKYLARK BUILDTECH LTD & ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court allowed the petition filed by the defendant (M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.) and directed the trial court to take the defendant's written statement on record, subject to the defendant paying a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to the plaintiff.
The court observed that the defendant had made oral requests to the plaintiff's counsel to provide the complete set of the plaint and documents, which was not supplied. The court noted that the limitation period for filing the written statement is directory and not mandatory in a non-commercial suit, and the delay can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown.
The court also noted that the plaintiffs/respondents had avoided appearing in the proceedings despite being granted multiple opportunities, which demonstrated their concession to the defendant's prayer. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, allowing the plaintiffs/respondents to file a replication in response to the written statement.
CM(M)-671/2025
Parties: RAM KISHOR ARORA Vs ROHIT VERMA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Consumer Law
The High Court held that the Managing Director of the Judgment Debtor company, Ram Kishor Arora, must appear physically before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on the next date of hearing to explain the non-compliance with the NCDRC's earlier order directing the Opposite Party (Supertech Limited) to refund a total amount of Rs. 91,83,830/- with interest to the complainants (Rohit Verma & Anr.).
The court recalled the coercive conditions, such as the issuance of a bailable warrant and the submission of bonds, that the NCDRC had imposed earlier due to the non-appearance of the Managing Director. However, the court left it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application if he is of the opinion that his prosecution under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not sustainable.
CM(M)-669/2025
Parties: H.S. OBEROI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. Vs SUPERIOR GLASS PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court granted the defendant-company (H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.) one more opportunity to present its sole witness, DW1 Mr. M.S. Oberoi, on April 17, 2025, and allowed the trial court to hear the final arguments on the same day, as per its convenience. However, the defendant-company was burdened with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff (Superior Glass Pvt. Ltd.) for causing delay in the matter.
CM(M)-3564/2024
Parties: SHAILENDRA JAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Railway Law
The High Court held that the railway cannot be held liable for the theft of the petitioner's unbooked belongings during the train journey, as the petitioner failed to take adequate precautions to secure his items. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in a similar case, which held that if a passenger is unable to protect their own belongings, the railway cannot be held responsible. The court found no perversity or impropriety in the NCDRC's order setting aside the lower commissions' awards of compensation to the petitioner, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
CRL.M.C.-2197/2025
Parties: GAURAV GAUR & ORS. Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the petition filed by the accused persons, quashing the FIR registered against them under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court observed that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement, and the marriage was also mutually dissolved. Considering the settlement between the parties and that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the FIR and the consequential proceedings. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes in such cases.
W.P.(CRL)-991/2025
Parties: FROOT TRIP PVT LTD & ORS. Vs THE NCT OF STATE & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR No. 126/2018 registered against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with all the consequential proceedings. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012), which recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the appropriateness of quashing criminal proceedings in such cases. The matter had been amicably resolved between the parties through a settlement deed/MoU, and the respondent (complainant) had no objections to the quashing of the FIR. Given the settlement between the parties and the absence of any further need for the criminal proceedings, the court decided to quash the FIR and all the consequential proceedings.
CRL.A.-118/2023
Parties: NAYEEM AHMAD KHAN Vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the appellant Nayeem Ahmad Khan to be prima facie true, based on the evidence collected by the NIA. The court found that the appellant was one of the main strategists and planners in a larger criminal conspiracy involving Hurriyat Conference leaders and banned terrorist organizations, aimed at seeking secession of Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India through violent means.
The court noted that the appellant has been charged under Sections 120B, 121, 121A IPC and Sections 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 39 and 40 of the UAPA Act, and the appeal against the framing of charges is pending. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the long period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, and the possibility of the appellant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the court dismissed the appellant's appeal for regular bail.
W.P.(C)-13594/2022
Parties: SUNIL SINGH DEV Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that the delay in appointing the petitioner was solely attributable to the respondents, and the petitioner could not be penalized for this delay. The court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner notional promotion to the rank of Inspector (GD) with effect from the date his juniors were promoted, along with notional pay fixation and seniority benefits, but without any arrears of pay. The court found that the respondents' reliance on the Recruitment Rules to deny the petitioner's promotion was misplaced, as the petitioner had completed the requisite training.
W.P.(C)-13573/2022
Parties: SMT SEEMA T TELGOTE Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The High Court held that the death of the petitioner's husband due to a stray dog bite that resulted in rabies was an "accident by outward violent and visible means" under the Group Insurance Scheme, and not a "natural death". Accordingly, the court directed the insurance company to pay the additional "Double Accident Benefit" of Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner, along with interest. The court relied on the findings of the Staff Court of Inquiry which had concluded that the death was attributable to government service, and the petitioner had already been granted other financial benefits.
Bombay High Court
WP/864/2024
Parties: DIPAK SHIVAJI SHELAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANGESH S. PATIL, JUSTICE PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR
Area of Law: Service Law
The court found that the recruitment process conducted by the Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj was marred by gross irregularities and violations of procedural fairness. There were allegations of lack of quorum, manipulations in interview scores, and demands of money from candidates. Given the magnitude of the irregularities, the court held that it was impossible to segregate the tainted selections from the untainted ones, and therefore the entire selection process was vitiated.
The court noted that the management itself had cancelled the recruitment process by a resolution dated 04-08-2023, finding the process to be grossly illegal. In light of this, the selected candidates' claims for appointment orders were held to be untenable.
The court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the management for its conduct in the recruitment process, which was found to be lacking in bona fides. The court dismissed the petitions filed by both the selected and unselected candidates, finding that no effective relief could be granted in the circumstances.
The key aspect of the court's decision was its finding that the entire recruitment process was tainted, necessitating the cancellation of the process in its entirety, despite the inconvenience caused to the selected candidates.
FA/2789/2024
Parties: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Vs KUNTABAI INDAR KHEDEKAR AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The High Court held that the insurance policy issued by the appellant (New India Assurance Company) did not cover the risk of the deceased security guard, as the policy specifically listed the categories of employees covered (cleaners and supervisors) and did not include security guards. The court refused to interpret the policy broadly to include the security guard.
On the issue of "pay and recover", the court distinguished this case from the precedents relied upon by the respondents, as those cases involved statutory insurance policies under the Motor Vehicles Act, whereas in this case, the insurance policy was a private contract between the insurer and the employer. The court held that the principle of "pay and recover" cannot be applied in proceedings under the Employees' Compensation Act in such cases.
The court partially allowed the appeal, directing the employer (respondent no. 6) to pay the compensation amount to the claimants, and dismissing the claim against the insurance company (appellant).
WP/12846/2024
Parties: URMILADEVI MAHAVIRPRASAD JAIN AND ANR Vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR, JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE
Area of Law: Banking Law
The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Mumbai. The court found that this is a fit case to interfere and hold that the petitioners cannot be compelled to make a pre-deposit as a condition precedent for hearing their appeal on merits before the DRAT.
The key legal points addressed by the court were: (i) the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition; (ii) the implication of the settlement reached between the petitioners and the bank, and whether the bank is bound by the terms of the settlement; and (iii) the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in the context of the settlement.
The court has directed the DRAT to hear the petitioners' appeal on merits, keeping the rival contentions on the merits of the case open for consideration.
WP/2994/2025
Parties: B.M.ES BHAGYAWAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND RECORDS MUMBAI SUBURBAN DISTRICT
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the authorities erred in condoning the delay of over 11 years in filing the appeal against the order dated 31 May 2005. The court found that the explanation provided by the contesting respondents, which was merely a bald statement of lack of knowledge of the order, did not constitute "sufficient cause" to warrant condonation of such a prolonged delay. The court emphasized that the respondents failed to place on record any credible and contemporaneous evidence demonstrating due diligence and absence of negligence during the intervening period. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned orders condoning the delay and allowed the writ petition.
WP/6755/2023
Parties: MR. RAHUL RAMCHANDRA RATHI Vs THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY , THRU DY COLLECTOR, ACQUISITION, IRRIGATION AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The High Court held that the petitioner's land measuring 550 sq.m was physically acquired in 2012, but the petitioner was paid compensation only for 50 sq.m. The court found unimpeachable evidence to support the petitioner's contention and ordered the respondents, the NHAI authorities, to initiate a fresh acquisition process for the additional 500 sq.m within one month and pay the petitioner appropriate compensation within a year. The court also directed the NHAI to pay the petitioner an interim amount of Rs.25 lakhs within two months, which will be adjusted against the final compensation. The court kept the observations on the issue of compensation open, allowing the competent authorities to determine the compensation in accordance with the law.
WP/19366/2024
Parties: A. R. SULPHONATES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA THR. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA, JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA
Area of Law: Customs Law
The High Court held that the imposition of interest, penalty, and redemption fine on the petitioner for non-payment of IGST on imports under the Advance Authorization scheme is not valid. The court found that the provisions of the Customs Act relating to interest, offences, and penalties are not applicable to the IGST levied under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, based on the ratio of the court's previous judgment in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. The court also held that the amendment to Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act, which made the provisions of the Customs Act applicable to IGST, is prospective in nature and not applicable to the present case.
WPCRST/268/2025
Parties: GULNAR JOSHI, THR. HER CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY KARAN SINGH MANRAL Vs STATE OF GOA, THR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NORTH GOA AND 3 ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE, JUSTICE NIVEDITA P. MEHTA
Area of Law: Custody Law
The High Court held that the paramount consideration in determining the custody of the minor child Iman is his welfare and best interests. The court conducted an elaborate inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case, rather than a summary inquiry, as Iman is 15 years and 8 months old.
The court found that Iman has expressed a clear desire to stay with his father, and forcing him to return to Canada against his wishes would be detrimental to his interests at this stage of adolescence. The court directed that Iman can continue his studies in India through the Ontario Virtual School, which follows the same curriculum as his previous school in Canada. The court also directed the father to ensure that Iman meets his mother regularly for a minimum period of 8-10 days.
WP/8162/2022
Parties: NITIN BALKRUSHNA DANGE AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MAHA., THR. SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. FOR THE STATE OF MAHA., MUMBAI AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JUSTICE ABHAY J. MANTRI
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court upheld the validity of the government's decision to transfer the Shivani Adivasi Secondary & Higher Secondary Ashram School from the Semana Vidya Va Vanvikas Prashikshan Mandal to the Navjyot Shikshan Prasarak Mandal.
The court found that the government was empowered under the relevant rules to issue such orders for change in management or transfer of ashram schools. It noted that the school was facing infrastructure and resource deficiencies, leading to a decline in student admissions. The court held that the transfer was done in accordance with the prescribed guidelines, and the petitioners' arguments relying on previous judgments were not applicable, as the court had not considered the specific government resolution permitting such transfers.
IAL/17609/2024
Parties: KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD. AND ANR Vs MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS AND SENDOZ COMM.PVT LTD AND ANR (PROP RES)
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE MAKARAND SUBHASH KARNIK
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the Bokaro Power Supply Company Limited (BPSCPL) is either a government entity or an independent power producer, as per the terms of the tender. The court found that the petitioner, Karam Chand Thapar & Bros., was debarred/blacklisted by BPSCPL, and therefore the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (MAHAGENCO) was justified in rejecting the petitioner's bid on this ground.
The court noted that the petitioner had itself described BPSCPL as a government entity in a previous writ petition, and was therefore estopped from arguing otherwise. The court ultimately dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, finding no fault with MAHAGENCO's decision to reject the bid and forfeit the security amount.
ITXA/405/2003
Parties: TECHNOVA IMAGING SYSTEMS LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE MAKARAND SUBHASH KARNIK
Area of Law: Income Tax Law
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in ruling that the appellant, as the amalgamated company, was not entitled to adjust the written down value of the assets of the amalgamating companies based on the depreciation actually allowed to them. The Court agreed with the appellant's contention that Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, which deals with the carry forward of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation in cases of amalgamation, was not applicable as the appellant did not claim such carry forward, and its claim was limited to adopting the correct written down value of the block of assets of the amalgamating companies as per the provisions of Sections 32 and 43(6) of the Act. The Court referred to the Madras High Court decision in EID Parry (India) Ltd. and held that the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating companies should be added to the written down value of the block of assets of the amalgamated company.
Calcutta High Court
FA/144/2017
Parties: PUNJAB & SIND BANK vs M/S. CHAINRUP SAMPATRAM
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Banking Law
The High Court held that the defendant bank was liable for the fraudulent acts of its branch manager in prematurely discounting and discharging the plaintiff's fixed deposits without authorization. The court found that the branch manager's actions were within the regular course of the bank's business, and the bank could not avoid liability by citing the branch manager's misconduct under the bank's internal service rules. The court rejected the bank's arguments that the plaintiff could only prove negligence, not fraud, and that the branch manager was a necessary party. The court upheld the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff partnership firm, with some minor modifications regarding the payment of interest.
WPA/2477/2012
Parties: M/S. BRAITHWAITE & CO. LIMITED vs SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court set aside the orders of the Second Industrial Tribunal, which had held that the State Government was the appropriate government in this case. The High Court ruled that the Central Government is the appropriate government, as the petitioner company was taken over by the Central Government through nationalization in 1976 and is carrying on its industry under the authority of the Central Government. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, which held that the Central Government is the appropriate government if the industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. The High Court directed the appropriate authority (Central Government) to make a reference in respect of the dispute within 60 days.
WPA/21596/2024
Parties: BINARANI MANDAL vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Area of Law: Environmental Law
The High Court has held that the petitioner, who is the widow of a person killed in a tiger attack in a prohibited area, is entitled to receive an ex gratia payment from the government under a scheme for victims of depredation by wild animals.
The court acknowledged that the area where the incident occurred is a protected/prohibited area under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. However, the court noted that the authorities have not taken adequate measures to prevent the fishermen from entering these areas, and that the fishermen are largely unaware of the legal consequences of entering the prohibited zones.
The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagraja, which recognized the rights of animals and the fundamental duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures. The court used this principle to argue that the government should not deny the ex gratia payment solely on the ground that the deceased entered a prohibited area.
Despite the delay in filing the application for compensation, the court decided to allow the petition, considering the wretched condition of the people in the area who rely on fishing, crab collection, and honey collection for their livelihood. The court has directed the Conservator of Forests and Field Director to pay the revised rate of compensation to the petitioner within 8 weeks.