Daily Judgments of 10 December
Supreme Court of India
SLP(Crl) No.-016239 - 2024
Parties: DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA VS THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA, JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
The Court held that the FIR filed by the wife (respondent No. 2) against the husband (appellant No. 1) and his family members (appellant Nos. 2-6) under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act should be quashed.
The court found that the allegations made by the wife in the FIR were vague and omnibus, lacking concrete details. The court also noted that the wife had previously left the matrimonial home and then returned, and that the FIR appeared to be a retaliatory measure after the husband had sought divorce.
Further, the court held that the inclusion of the husband's family members (appellant Nos. 2-6) in the FIR, without any specific allegations against them, was an abuse of the legal process and amounted to unnecessary harassment. The court observed that there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for personal vendetta in matrimonial disputes.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and the ongoing trial against the appellants.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
C.A. No.-013348-013348 - 2024
Parties: BANWARI VS HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC)
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
The Court has allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and upholding the order of the Land Acquisition Collector granting the enhanced compensation to the appellants under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Court held that the appellants' case is covered by its earlier judgment in Pradeep Kumari v. Union of India, which had interpreted Section 28-A liberally to achieve the objective of removing inequality in compensation. The Court noted that the Pradeep Kumari judgment, being earlier in time and decided by a three-judge bench, would be binding precedent over the subsequent Ramsingbhai v. State of Gujarat judgment relied upon by the High Court.
The Court found that the appellants had satisfied the conditions laid down in Pradeep Kumari for invoking Section 28-A, including filing the application within three months of the High Court's judgment enhancing the compensation for the similarly circumstanced landowners.
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
C.A. No.-003309-003310 - 1997
Parties: INDRAKASHI DEVI VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH, JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
The Court held that the authorities, including the Bengaluru Development Authority and Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike, willfully disobeyed the Court's orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 by deliberately delaying the implementation of the directives to issue TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) to the landowners whose land was acquired for road widening.
The Court rejected the authorities' attempts to get the orders modified on the ground of financial hardship, and directed them to issue the TDR as per the market value determined under the Karnataka Stamp Act within 6 weeks. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh each on the contemnors, except in one case where the landowner was directed to pursue the matter before the competent authority.
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
Crl.A. No.-005175-005175 - 2024
Parties: JAYDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAVDA VS THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
The bench held that a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC is made out against the appellants, as the evidence indicated the deceased faced consistent physical and mental harassment by the accused. However, the court found that the requisite mens rea to abet suicide under Section 306 IPC is lacking, as the alleged incidents of harassment occurred a year prior to the death and did not create a situation where the deceased was left with no option but to end her life. Accordingly, the court partly allowed the appeal, discharging the appellants from the charges under Section 306 IPC but upholding the charges under Section 498A IPC.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
Crl.A. No.-005165-005165 - 2024
Parties: MUTHUPANDI VS STATE
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Court modified the sentence considering the special facts of the case - the incident occurred 11 years ago, the appellant has been on bail throughout, and the appellant has deposited 1,00,000 as compensation for the deceased's mother, who is the sole legal heir.
While maintaining the conviction, the Court set aside the sentences of imprisonment and fines, and instead ordered that the 1,00,000 deposited by the appellant, along with interest, be paid to the mother of the deceased. The Court exercised its powers under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pass this order.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
C.A. No.-014151-014152 - 2024
Parties: CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR VS MANJIT KUMAR GULATI
Judge(s): JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Chandigarh Administrator and others, setting aside the High Court's order that had allowed the writ petitions filed by the original allottees (Manjit Kumar Gulati and others) and the alleged tenant (M/s. Mohit Medicos).
The court held that the original allotment made in favor of the allottees was rightly cancelled by the Assistant Estate Office after they failed to clear the outstanding dues despite being given sufficient opportunities. Though the Chief Administrator had provided the allottees a final chance to pay the dues and retain the lease, they instead filed a delayed petition before the Advisor, which was dismissed as time-barred.
The court found that the alleged tenant, M/s. Mohit Medicos, had no locus standi to file the writ petition, as it could not produce any document to show it was the tenant of the original allottees. The court held that the High Court had erred in allowing the writ petitions, as the allottees themselves had failed to comply with the auction conditions and their allotment was rightly cancelled after due process.
Area of Law: Property Law
Crl.A. No.-000458-000458 - 2012
Parties: NUSRAT PARWEEN VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA, JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
The Supreme Court has acquitted the accused-appellants, Nusrat Parween, Ahmad Khan, and Abdul Rahman Khan, of the charges of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that the prosecution could not prove the motive for the murder convincingly and also failed to establish the "last seen together" theory. The court has also extended the benefit of this judgment to Abdul Rahman Khan, who did not file an appeal.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
C.A. No.-014277-014278 - 2024
Parties: PARVIN KUMAR JAIN VS ANJU JAIN
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
The Supreme Court held that the Family Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate interim maintenance under Section 24 and child-related relief under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, even after the withdrawal of the main divorce petition. The Court found that the appellant had deliberately concealed his income and assets to minimize his maintenance liability, and upheld the High Court's order for enhanced interim maintenance to the wife and child. Ultimately, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court dissolved the irretrievably broken marriage and awarded a one-time lump sum settlement to the wife and child, considering the appellant's financial capacity.
Area of Law: Family Law
C.A. No.-014132-014132 - 2024
Parties: STATE OF ODISHA VS DILIP KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
The Supreme Court of India held that the first respondent, Dilip Kumar Mohapatra, was engaged as a Computer Technician at the College of Teacher Education, Balasore on a temporary and fixed-term basis. As his appointment was not through a regular recruitment procedure, the Court found that he was not entitled to reinstatement or re-engagement, even though similarly situated persons were reinstated by the Tribunal in separate proceedings.
The Court acknowledged that the disengagement prior to the expiry of the term may have been without reasons and in violation of natural justice principles. However, the appropriate relief in such cases would be monetary compensation, not reinstatement. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's order directing reinstatement, and instead awarded the first respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as full and final settlement of his claims.
Area of Law: Employment Law
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-4832/20212024:DHC:9493-DB
Parties: M/S AMYRA TECHNICA PVT.LTD. Vs THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
The main legal issue is the inordinate delay in concluding the adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, the Finance Act, 1994, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners contend that the failure of the authorities to conclude the adjudication within a reasonable time is sufficient ground to annul the proceedings.
In some cases, the authorities have passed final orders after significant delays, while in others, the adjudication proceedings are still pending. The court examines the timeline and reasons for the delays in each case. The court reviews the statutory framework under the three Acts, including the amendments made to Section 28 of the Customs Act in 2018. The court analyzes the impact of these amendments, particularly the introduction of Section 28(9-A) and Explanations 2 and 4.
The court discusses the judgments in Sayed Ali, Mangali Impex, and Canon India, which cast doubt on the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to initiate adjudication proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The court also examines the legislative interventions, such as the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 and the Finance Act, 2022, which sought to validate the actions of the DRI officers.
The court scrutinizes the respondents' explanation for the delays, including the placement of matters in the "call book" and the flux in the legal position. The court finds the respondents' actions and explanations inadequate and not in compliance with the statutory requirements. The court reiterates that the authorities are bound to conclude the adjudication proceedings with due expedition, and the flexibility provided by the statutes cannot be construed as a license for lethargy or inaction. The court analyzes the precedents on the principle of "reasonable period" for the authorities to exercise their powers.
Ultimately, the court finds the delays in the adjudication proceedings to be unjustified and inconsistent with the statutory framework. Accordingly, the court quashes the show-cause notices and any final orders passed in the batch of writ petitions.
Area of Law: Customs Law
RFA-785/20242024:DHC:9507
Parties: MOHD. IRFAN Vs HASAN MIAN SINC DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
The High Court of Delhi held that the appellant tenant had unambiguously admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondents, and the rent being above the protection ceiling under rent control laws. The court found that the tenancy had either expired by efflux of time or was validly terminated by a quit notice, allowing the court to grant a preliminary decree for recovery of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on the admissions in the pleadings, without requiring a full trial. The single judge upheld the trial court's judgment and decree, finding no infirmity in the same.
Area of Law: Rent Control Law
W.P.(C)-5864/20192024:DHC:9464-DB
Parties: MIR SINGH (THROUGH LRS) Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
The High Court of Delhi held that the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of late Shri Mir Singh, are entitled to the same enhanced compensation of Rs. 37,000 per bigha that was awarded to their co-owner, Shri Balwant Singh, in a separate case. The court relied on the principle that co-owners of jointly held land are entitled to equal treatment in matters of enhanced compensation, as established in previous judgments. The court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to award the enhanced compensation to the petitioners, along with all other statutory benefits, within three months.
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
LPA-896/20242024:DHC:9465-DB
Parties: MADAN PAL GUPTA & ANR. Vs MAYA DEVI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
The High Court of Delhi held that the Single Judge had misconstrued the ratio in the Supreme Court judgment in Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, which held that once an area is declared urbanized under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 cease to apply and any pending proceedings under that Act become non est in law.
The High Court observed that the notification declaring the area as urbanized was issued on 16.05.2017, which was crucial in determining the rights of the parties. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Area of Law: Land Reform Law
W.P.(C)-13734/20192024:DHC:9487-DB
Parties: VIKESH KUMAR SINGH Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
The High Court of Delhi held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioners, CISF constables, was disproportionate and discriminatory compared to the punishment of severe reprimand given to an ITBP personnel involved in the same security breach incident.
The court noted that while the petitioners were found guilty of dereliction of duty and facilitating a security breach at a sensitive post, the punishment of removal from service was not proportionate when an employee of another paramilitary force (ITBP) involved in the same incident received a lesser punishment.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that parity in punishment should be maintained among co-delinquents involved in the same incident. The court therefore set aside the orders imposing the punishment of removal from service and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service immediately, albeit without any back wages or other consequential benefits.
Area of Law: Employment Law
Bombay High Court
WP/1123/2024
Parties: SUJIT SUHASRAO DESHMUKH Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE
The High Court of Bombay held that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioner/accused No. 12 under sections 420 (cheating), 425 (mischief), 468 (forgery), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the allegations of conspiracy, execution of fraudulent sale deeds, and illegal mutation of land entries in collusion with the revenue authorities, made out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the orders of the lower courts, which had rejected the discharge application.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
WPCRST/947/2024
Parties: MAHANAND NAIK, PRESENTLY LODGED IN MODERN CENTRAL JAIL, COLVALE GOA Vs STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE MAKARAND SUBHASH KARNIK, JUSTICE NIVEDITA P. MEHTA
The High Court upheld the discharge of the appellants from charges under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, finding no evidence of deliberate withholding of information or a conspiracy to deceive. The court held that the AICTE had granted approval for the 'Business School of Delhi' despite knowing about the bank loan and mortgage on the land, and no official of the AICTE was implicated in any wrongdoing. The court also found that the CBI's petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was maintainable, but the statutory remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was the more appropriate course of action.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
Quick Tip: Click on the case name to instantly view the Judgment!
Calcutta High Court
SA/339/1986
Parties: SK. MD. YASIN & ORS vs SK. ASRAF ALI, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY ASMANI BEGUM & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
The High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgments of the courts below. The High Court found that the lower courts' decisions were perverse, as they ignored the documentary evidence like registered deeds and record of rights in the plaintiff's favor, and incorrectly applied the concept of a 'karta' under Hindu law to a Mohammedan family.
The High Court also held that the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that it is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, in the absence of any clear evidence of ouster between the co-sharers. The High Court remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh adjudication on merits, after providing both parties an opportunity to contest.
Area of Law: Property Law
WPA/29516/2024
Parties: MAHIDUL ISLAM vs THE BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR EDUCATION UNIVERSITY
Judge(s): JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
The High Court at Calcutta, in a writ petition filed by a student of the Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University, directed the University to complete the formalities regarding the petitioner's registration and allow him to fill up the B.Ed second semester examination form and appear for the examination. The court noted that the University had earlier issued a notice granting a similar opportunity to students who were unable to take the first semester examination, and a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had previously allowed other petitioners to appear for the second semester examination along with regular students. The court directed the University to issue an appropriate admit card to the petitioner.
Area of Law: Education Law
CO/1788/2021
Parties: SRI DEBI PROSAD CHAKRABORTI vs SMT. RANU GHOSH & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
The High Court of Calcutta held that in the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the trial court was required to solely determine the arrears of rent payable by the tenant, and not to pre-judge the issue of whether the tenant was entitled to protection against eviction under Section 7(4) of the Act.
The court noted that the issue of whether the tenant had previously obtained the benefit of protection against eviction under the Act, and whether the tenant had again defaulted in rent payment for 4 months within 12 months, was a matter for final adjudication in the main suit. The court directed the trial court to frame an additional issue to determine this question.
While dismissing the revision application, the court kept the issue of the tenant's entitlement to protection under Section 7(4) open for final determination in the main suit.
Area of Law: Rent Control Law
CRR/1739/2024
Parties: DIPAK SONI vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
The High Court of Calcutta, held that the allegations and evidence against the petitioner, Dipak Soni, did not prima facie constitute the offenses under Sections 120B and 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court found that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The court noted that the case falls under categories 1, 3, and 7 of the grounds for quashing criminal proceedings as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Bhajan Lal judgment.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
CRR/1919/2024
Parties: URMIL PATEL vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
The High Court of Calcutta allowed the revision application filed by Urmil Patel and quashed the criminal proceedings against him under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the allegations and evidence did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner, and the proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide and an ulterior motive, falling under the categories identified in the Bhajan Lal judgment where the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. The court noted that the proceedings will continue against the rest of the accused persons.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
CRR/3061/2023
Parties: SUDIPTO DUTTA & ORS. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
The High Court of Calcutta, allowed the revision application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court found that the allegations against the petitioners, who were alleged to be customers, do not prima facie constitute the offenses under the relevant sections of the Act. Relying on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that the present case falls under the categories where the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings, as the allegations are absurd and the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and malicious intent.
Area of Law: Criminal Law
CRR/4164/2023
Parties: SRI MANOJ KUMAR vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
The High Court held that the allegations against the petitioner, Manoj Kumar, did not make out a prima facie case under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the court found that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Area of Law: Criminal Law