Daily Judgments of 22 April
Supreme Court of India
C.A. No.-003797-003797 - 2025
Parties: MD. FIROZ AHMAD KHALID VS THE STATE OF MANIPUR
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH, JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Area of Law: Waqf Law
The Court held that the term of a Muslim Member of the Bar Council serving on the Waqf Board is co-terminus with their membership in the Bar Council. Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the Wakf Act, 1995 applies equally to Muslim Members of the Bar Council on the Board, and they are deemed to have vacated their Board position upon losing their Bar Council membership. The court adopted a purposive interpretation of the provisions, finding that excluding Muslim Members of the Bar Council from the applicability of Explanation II would be contrary to the legislative intent and lead to unreasonable classification.
Crl.A. No.-001371-001371 - 2025
Parties: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON VS VENKATESAN @ SENU @ SRINIVASAN @ BASKARAN @ RADIO @ PRAKASAM
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE MANMOHAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining Venkatesan's petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 374(2). However, the Court refrained from deciding the case only on this ground, as it involved a serious question regarding the interpretation of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Court noted the conflicting views expressed by the judges in the earlier Supreme Court decision in Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali case, where one judge allowed the set-off of periods spent in custody under a PT warrant in a different case, while the other two judges disagreed. Finding the views irreconcilable, the Court decided to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India to consider the desirability of constituting a larger bench for a proper interpretation of Section 428.
Pending the outcome of the reference, the Court stayed the direction for set-off in the High Court's impugned order, but allowed Venkatesan to remain released if he had already been released.
C.A. No.-005436-005437 - 2025
Parties: BARLA RAM REDDY VS THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SURYA KANT, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the auction sale of plots in the "Golden Mile" project to determine the market value of the acquired land. The court found that these auction sales were not reliable indicators of the true market value due to factors like the developed nature of the Golden Mile plots, the post-acquisition timing of the auction, and the inherent unreliability of auction prices.
Instead, the court identified a set of six pre-acquisition sale deeds as the most appropriate sale exemplars to determine the market value. Applying a 20% per year compounding escalation to account for the rapidly rising land prices in the area, the court arrived at a market value of INR 44.64 lakhs per acre.
The court upheld the landowners' statutory entitlements to solatium and interest, but corrected the interest rate to be as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (9% for the first year, 15% thereafter), instead of the 12% rate granted by the High Court.
Crl.A. No.-005305-005305 - 2024
Parties: N. VIJAY KUMAR VS VISHWANATH RAO N.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Area of Law: Negotiable Instruments Law
The Court held that the accused was able to successfully rebut the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defense. The court noted that the accused had stated that the cheque was issued against a smaller loan of Rs.3,50,000/- which was subsequently repaid with interest, as evidenced by a Memorandum of Understanding. The court found that the accused had discharged the initial burden, and the onus then shifted back to the complainant, who failed to prove the existence of the debt or liability. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the high court's judgment convicting the accused and restored the trial court's order of acquittal.
C.A. No.-005398-005398 - 2025
Parties: NIDHI BHARGAVA VS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The Court held that the High Court erred in excluding the deceased's income tax return for the assessment year 2008-2009 solely on the ground that it was filed after the date of the accident. The Court ruled that income tax returns are reliable evidence to assess a deceased's income, and the date of filing the return is irrelevant as it relates to the financial year prior to the accident. The Court restored the original compensation amount of ₹31,41,000 awarded by the Tribunal, finding the High Court's reduction to ₹16,97,370 unjustified and against the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act as a beneficial welfare legislation. The Court directed the respondent insurance company to make the payment with 9% interest per annum, with an additional 9% interest for any delay.
Crl.A. No.-001179-001180 - 2023
Parties: REJI KUMAR ALIAS REJI VS STATE OF KERALA
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 (four counts), 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the brutal murders of his wife and four children, as well as the rape of his daughter. However, the court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment till the end of the appellant's natural life, considering the mitigating factors such as his lack of prior criminal record, good conduct in prison, mental health issues, and efforts at rehabilitation. The court found that the imposition of the death penalty would be unjustified in this case.
C.A. No.-005401-005401 - 2025
Parties: ANGADI CHANDRANNA VS SHANKAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court held that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1, and not ancestral property. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had purchased the property using a loan obtained from DW3, and the evidence did not establish that the property was acquired using joint family funds or 'nucleus'.
The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the doctrine of blending should apply, as the suit property was distinct from the property received by Defendant No. 1 under a will. The court also held that Defendant No. 1, being the sole surviving coparcener at the time, was competent to sell the property to Defendant No. 2.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition of the suit property.
Crl.A. No.-002142-002142 - 2017
Parties: AEJAZ AHMAD SHEIKH VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL, JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the accused of charges under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife and three daughters. The court found issues with the recording of the minor eyewitness's testimony and the non-inclusion of the dying declarations in the accused's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. The court concluded that the High Court's view of the evidence not proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt was a possible view, and therefore the acquittal could not be overturned. The court also provided suggestions to the judiciary on improving the process of recording the accused's statement under Section 313 to avoid such issues in the future.
Crl.A. No.-001527-001527 - 2025
Parties: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS RAMESH CHANDER DIWAN
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE MANMOHAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the respondent, Ramesh Chander Diwan, who was on deputation from the Government of Punjab to the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh, continued to be a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC and was thus entitled to the protection of Section 197 of the Cr.PC. The court found that the respondent's relationship with the Government of Punjab was not severed despite his deputation, and he remained removable from office only by the appropriate authority in the Government of Punjab. Therefore, the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC for lack of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC.
C.A. No.-005452-005453 - 2025
Parties: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR VS PEDDI NARAYANA SWAMI
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Medical Law
The Court upheld the findings of medical negligence against the appellant hospital and the doctor (Respondent No. 2) in the treatment of the deceased patient. However, the Court reduced the total compensation amount to Rs. 10 lakhs, which was the amount already deposited by the appellant hospital in the Supreme Court Registry, along with the accrued interest.
C.A. No.-005319-005319 - 2025
Parties: KANCHHU VS PRAKASH CHAND
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE MANMOHAN
Area of Law: Civil Law
The Court held that the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents to set aside the ex parte decree passed in favor of the appellant.
The Court found that the High Court failed to properly consider the reasons given by the trial court and the appellate court for dismissing the respondents' application to set aside the ex parte decree, as the respondents did not make out a sufficient case for their continuous absence from the proceedings.
The Supreme Court further noted that the High Court wrongly set aside the ex parte decree passed by the trial court, without properly examining the case and counter-case set up by the parties, and demonstrated a clear misconception of the legal position regarding the rights of a defendant set ex parte in a civil suit.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's impugned order and upheld the order of the appellate court dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents.
Crl.A. No.-002065-002065 - 2025
Parties: CHELLAMMAL VS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE MANMOHAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the trial court and high court erred in not considering whether the appellants, the mother-in-law and husband of the deceased, were eligible for release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite convicting them under Section 498A IPC (cruelty). The court noted that the lower courts had failed to record reasons for not granting probation, as required under Section 361 CrPC. The court maintained the conviction of the appellants but remitted the matter to the high court for limited consideration of granting them the benefit of probation, after obtaining a report from the probation officer.
C.A. No.-014276-014276 - 2024
Parties: RAMANUJ KUMAR VS PRIYANKA
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Area of Law: Family Law
The Court allowed the appellant's (husband's) appeal and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent (wife) on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court observed that multiple attempts at reconciliation had failed, and the parties had lived separate lives for over a decade, with no willingness to restore the marital bond. While the respondent had not pursued any formal petition for custody or visitation of their elder daughter, who has been in the appellant's exclusive care and custody, the Court granted the respondent reasonable visitation rights to meet her daughter, in the interest of justice, equity, and the welfare of the child.
Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN.-2971/2024
Parties: KARANJEET SINGH Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to the Applicant, Karanjeet Singh, who was charged under Sections 498A/304-B/34 IPC and alternatively under Sections 306/34 IPC, in relation to the death of his wife.
The court held that while the death of the young woman within a year of marriage under unnatural circumstances warrants serious legal scrutiny, the evidentiary foundation laid by the prosecution lacked the specificity required to invoke the presumption under Section 304B IPC. The court found that the allegations of dowry-related cruelty or harassment were vague and lacked the necessary proximity in time to the death of the victim.
Regarding the alternative charge under Section 306 IPC, the court observed that the prosecution had not alleged any specific acts by the Applicant that amounted to instigation or abetment of the deceased's suicide.
The court granted the Applicant bail on furnishing a personal bond and other conditions, noting that the investigation is complete, the charge sheet has been filed, and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. The court clarified that its observations are limited to the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial.
BAIL APPLN.-1362/2024
Parties: VAIBHAV YADAV Vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners, without a reasonable prospect of a speedy trial, violates their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Balancing this against the stringent conditions for bail under the NDPS Act, the court granted bail to 5 out of the 7 petitioners, imposing standard conditions. However, the court denied bail to the petitioners Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta, finding the evidence against them, including statements, chats, and recovery of contraband, to be sufficiently incriminating at this stage. The court clarified that its observations are limited to the bail proceedings and do not prejudice the merits of the case.
BAIL APPLN.-1406/2024
Parties: MANU WAHDWA @ MOHIT Vs THE STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Manu Wahdwa, who was charged with cheating the complainant, Gurpreet Kaur Rai, and her family members of over Rs. 5.63 crore. The court noted that the accused had induced the complainant and her family to invest money repeatedly over several years, falsely assuring them that the investments were made with the blessings of their religious preacher. Despite being granted repeated opportunities and a mediation settlement to return the money, the accused had failed to do so and had even stopped cooperating with the investigation. The court observed that the accused's conduct did not warrant granting anticipatory bail, as custodial interrogation was necessary to track down the trail of the cheated money.
BAIL APPLN.-4394/2024
Parties: SUBHASH BHATI Vs THE STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the bail applications of the accused (Subhash Bhati, Usman, and Shuaib) in a case under Section 20/29 of the NDPS Act. The court noted that the prosecution had presented evidence of substantial money transactions between the accused, as well as call detail records (CDRs), suggesting their involvement in a drug trafficking racket. The accused could not provide any documentary evidence to support their claim of having legitimate business transactions. Since the main accused Pravez continues to be in jail and the chargesheet has been filed (though charges are yet to be framed), the court did not find the case fit for granting bail to the accused.
W.P.(C)-10912/2022
Parties: NARENDER KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, Narender Kumar, challenging his dismissal from service by the Border Security Force (BSF). The court held that the conclusions reached by the BSF disciplinary authorities were based on evidence, and there were no procedural irregularities or violations of principles of natural justice that would warrant the court's intervention.
The court found that the Commandant was competent to preside over both the preliminary hearing and the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) trial, and the petitioner was provided adequate opportunities to defend himself. The court also held that the evidence presented, including photocopies of the SCOI proceedings, was admissible for the purposes of the disciplinary proceedings, even though it may not have been sufficient for a criminal trial.
The court noted that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the large sums of money he had remitted to his wife, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The court upheld the punishment of dismissal from service, as it was within the powers of the disciplinary authority under the BSF Act and Rules.
W.P.(C)-4662/2017
Parties: RAJENDRA YADAV Vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that the adverse remarks recorded in the petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period 2014-15, where he was assessed as a "person of doubtful integrity", were not justified. The court found that the Reviewing Officer lacked objectivity in assessing the petitioner's performance and did not comply with the APAR Practice and Procedures.
The court observed that the petitioner was exonerated of most of the charges against him by the Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI), and the issuance of a Director General's (DG) Displeasure to him could not have been considered in the APAR for the assessment period, as per the rules.
The court quashed the Impugned APAR and the consequential order rejecting the petitioner's representation against it. The court directed the respondents to constitute a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion retrospectively, and if found fit, to grant him promotion with all consequential benefits.
BAIL APPLN.-130/2025
Parties: VIJAY BHAN PANDEY THOUGH PAROKAR PARMOD PANDEY Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, Vijay Bhan Pandey, on the grounds of parity with the similarly placed co-accused and the petitioner's long period of incarceration (over 3 years) with no progress in the trial.
The court recognized the serious nature of the allegations, which include armed robbery, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation under the pretext of facilitating train travel.
However, the court held that in the absence of exceptional circumstances and given the petitioner's clean antecedents, the principle of parity should apply, especially since all the other co-accused have already been granted bail.
The court also noted that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was a relevant consideration in the case.
BAIL APPLN.-3329/2024
Parties: VICKY @ PUBJI Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, Vicky @ Pubji, who was accused in an FIR under Sections 392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code for a robbery incident. The court found that the petitioner had no previous criminal record, the mobile phone allegedly stolen from the complainant was not recovered from him, and the key witness Raghav Tiwari did not support the prosecution's case regarding the petitioner's identity as one of the accused. Considering the fact that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for almost two years and his jail conduct was satisfactory, the court granted him bail on furnishing a personal bond and subject to certain conditions, such as not leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without permission and regularly reporting to the police station.
BAIL APPLN.-4431/2024
Parties: CHAND BALA KINNAR Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Chand Bala Kinnar, who was arrested along with a co-accused under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court found that the petitioner was in possession of a smaller quantity of Ganja (5 kg 87 gms) compared to the co-accused who was earlier granted bail by the court. The petitioner has clean antecedents and has been in custody for around 1 year and 3 months since his arrest. Considering the principle of parity and the fact that the trial is yet to commence, the court granted the petitioner bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to certain conditions.
W.P.(C)-6460/2024
Parties: M S DEEPAK AND CO THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT POONAM PORWAL Vs INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Area of Law: Tender Law
The High Court held that the Letter of Award issued by the respondent IRCTC in favor of respondent No. 2 was not valid, as it violated the terms and conditions of the tender document. The main reasons were:
1. The respondent No. 2 did not disclose certain criminal cases pending against it, which was mandatory under the Integrity Pact (Annexure G) that formed part of the tender document. This deprived the IRCTC of the opportunity to evaluate whether the reliability or credibility of respondent No. 2 was in question, as required under the tender conditions.
2. The court disagreed with the interpretation that the time period of "last three years" mentioned in one section of the Integrity Pact could be read into another section. The court held that the respondent No. 2 was required to disclose all transgressions impinging on the anti-corruption principle, regardless of the time period.
3. The court observed that the failure of respondent No. 2 to disclose the criminal antecedents was not in conformity with the principle of fairness in public tenders, where steps need to be taken to remove any chances of transgressions impinging on the anti-corruption approach.
Therefore, the High Court quashed the Letter of Award issued to respondent No. 2 and directed the IRCTC to initiate the tender process afresh within three months. However, the respondent No. 2 was allowed to continue the work till the fresh tender is allotted.
Bombay High Court
CRA/311/2022
Parties: SOU. SUREKHA TANAJI NAIK Vs SHRI. TANJAJI BALASO NAIK
Judge(s): JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Area of Law: Lok Adalat Law
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, quashing the lower court's order that had entertained the respondents' challenge to the award passed by the Lok Adalat. The court held that the Supreme Court has clearly established that the only remedy to challenge a Lok Adalat award is by filing a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, and not by way of a suit or miscellaneous application in the Civil Court, even if the challenge is based on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. The lower court's order was set aside, and the main application filed by the respondents to challenge the Lok Adalat award was rejected as not maintainable.
WP/2012/2025
Parties: AADESH SHIVAJI NARKE Vs SHREE DNYANESHWAR MAHARAJ SANSTHAN AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Area of Law: Trust Law
The High Court held that the District Judge, acting as a "persona designata", does not have the power to modify the trust scheme itself, even though the rules framed under the scheme and sanctioned by the District Judge have the same binding force as the scheme. The High Court found that the scheme framed by the District Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not contain any express provision reserving the power of modification to the District Judge. The High Court ruled that after the enactment of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the appropriate forum for seeking modification of the scheme is the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 or 50A of the Act, and not the District Judge acting as a "persona designata".
CARAP/237/2024
Parties: TATA CAPITAL LIMITED Vs VIJAY DEVIJ AIYA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the clause in the arbitration agreement that allows the lender (Tata Capital Limited) to unilaterally opt out of arbitration if it becomes a beneficiary of SARFAESI Act or other debt recovery laws does not render the entire arbitration agreement invalid. The court distinguished the High Court of Delhi's decision in Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. v. Shri Chand Construction & Apartments Pvt. Ltd., noting that the present case did not involve a situation where the borrower was seeking to litigate outside of arbitration.
The court further held that the lender's previous initiation of arbitration proceedings, which had lapsed due to the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, did not preclude the lender from seeking fresh appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and directed the parties to appear before the arbitrator for further proceedings.
ITXA/389/2003
Parties: STARTIME COMMUNICATEION PVT. LTD. Vs COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CITY-VI, MUM.
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 was correct in its decision that the assessee, Star Time Communication (I) Pvt. Ltd., was entitled to claim only 5% of its actual receipts from advertising, which amounted to Rs.2,93,870, and not 5% of the total advertising bills of Rs.4,47,30,880. The court found that the findings of fact by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal regarding the assessee's income from advertising were not perverse or based on no evidence, and therefore, did not call for any interference in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Calcutta High Court
FMAT/57/2021
Parties: STAR TRACK AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED vs EFCALON TIE UP PRIVATE LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court upheld the interim award passed by the Arbitrator, finding that the agreement between the parties created a license and not a lease. The court held that even if the agreement was insufficiently stamped or unregistered, these defects would not render the agreement void, but at most would make it inadmissible in evidence. The court further found that the disputes between the parties were arbitrable, and that there were no grounds to interfere with the interim award under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.
WPA/17532/2022
Parties: SHANTA PRAMANIK vs BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK &ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PARTHASARATHI CHATTERJEE
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court held that the fresh disciplinary inquiry proceedings against the petitioner were not conducted in accordance with the directions and observations of the previous Division Bench order in MAT 2080 of 2017. The High Court found that the inquiry relied on materials from the earlier proceedings, failed to provide the petitioner an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses, and proceeded with a pre-conceived mindset, rendering the entire process legally unsustainable.
Considering the circumstances, the High Court set aside the order of punishment and the appellate order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with 50% of the back wages. The High Court also observed that remitting the matter back for a fresh inquiry would not be appropriate, as the management failed to offer a plausible explanation for the deposition of the shortfall amount by three other individuals.
CPAN/1459/2022
Parties: KARTIK CHANDRA KAPAS & ORS. vs BIKASH NASKAR & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE, JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Area of Law: Contempt Law
The High Court held that there was no willful and deliberate disobedience of its previous order by the Block Development Officer/Executive Officer (the alleged contemner) to warrant contempt proceedings. While the petitioners were dissatisfied with the compensation amount determined by the alleged contemner, the court found that the contemner had taken steps to comply with the court's order. However, since the compensation was not determined through a proper land acquisition procedure, the petitioners were not eligible for the statutory remedies to challenge the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the court directed that the petitioners be allowed to approach the appropriate court to challenge the compensation amount as if it was an order passed in a land acquisition proceeding, without prejudice to any other legal remedies available to them.
CRR/1906/2022
Parties: RUPALI SAHA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The High Court held that the alleged withholding of rent by the tenant (petitioner) is at best a violation of the tenancy agreement, but does not constitute the offenses of cheating (Section 420 IPC) or criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC). The court found the allegation of wrongful restraint (Section 341 IPC) to be vague and lacking in specific details. Concluding that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the court process, the High Court quashed the impugned criminal case.
MAT/903/2024
Parties: GUNJAN SINHA @ KANISHK SINHA AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA ORS.
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM, JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court upheld the validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, which governs the term of a patent. The court found that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) of the Act, which provides certain rights and privileges to the applicant from the date of publication of the patent application until the date of grant of the patent, operate in different fields and do not conflict with each other. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants challenging the validity of Section 53 as being ultra vires the Constitution.
MAT/1990/2023
Parties: ABHISHEK NAG vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE (E-OBC) & OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court set aside the order of removal from service imposed on the appellant, finding the punishment disproportionate to the charges of unauthorized leave and leaving the station without permission. The court held that the appellant had informed the bank authorities about his ailing father and sought leave, which was ignored. The court also found a violation of principles of natural justice, as the appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness. Accordingly, the court directed the bank to impose a minor punishment of withholding of increment for 2 years, while reinstating the appellant and providing him the benefit of continuity of service.