Daily Judgments of 27 November
Supreme Court of India
C.A. No.-013187-013187 - 2024
Parties: GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL VS AMAL SATPATHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
The Court held that retrospective or notional promotion of Dr. Amal Satpathi to the post of Chief Scientific Officer after his retirement is not permissible under Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, as he did not actually assume the duties and responsibilities of the higher post before superannuation. The court noted that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, there is no absolute right to the promotion itself. Promotion becomes effective only upon assumption of the higher post's duties, and not from the date of occurrence of the vacancy or recommendation for promotion. As Dr. Satpathi retired before his promotion could be finalized, the court set aside the orders of the High Court and Administrative Tribunal granting him notional financial benefits of the promotional post.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-9449/20242024:DHC:9187
Parties: KSHITIJ GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by Kshitij Gupta, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, challenging the denial of his application for a special work permit to be employed by the British High Commission in India.
The court held that the requirement for an OCI cardholder to obtain a special work permit prior to employment in any diplomatic mission in India is stipulated in a notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The court found that the British High Commission's request for the special work permit lacked proper justification for employing a third country national, as required under the Protocol Handbook issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. The court also held that the petitioner's arguments on the principle of reciprocity were not adequately established.
Referring to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, the court ruled that the denial of the special work permit was a prudent exercise to protect national security and diplomatic interests, which must prevail over individual grievances. The court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner may explore other avenues consistent with the laws and regulations governing employment in diplomatic missions.
RC.REV.-45/20152024:DHC:9188
Parties: GARG TRADING CO Vs VIJAY MEHRA & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlords under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court found that the landlords have a genuine and bona fide need for the tenanted premises for their residential and commercial purposes, and that they do not have any other suitable alternate accommodation available.
The court rejected the arguments of the tenants/sub-tenants that the eviction petition cannot be maintained against them, as they are alleged to be sub-tenants. The court held that the status of the persons in occupation of the tenanted premises, whether as tenants or sub-tenants, is not relevant for the purpose of this case, as the landlords are seeking eviction on the ground of their bona fide requirement.
The court also noted that the tenants/sub-tenants had contested the eviction petition by filing their respective leave to defend applications, and therefore they were given an opportunity to present their case. The court found no infirmity in the Rent Controller's findings and dismissed the revision petitions filed by the tenants/sub-tenants.
CUSAA-26/20222024:DHC:9149-DB
Parties: NIRAJ SILK MILLS Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ICD) PATPARGANJ
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
The High Court held that the Customs authorities' enhancement of the declared values of the imported goods solely on the basis of NIDB data was improper, as it lacked cogent reasons and evidence as required under the Customs Valuation Rules. The Court emphasized that the proper officer must record reasons for doubting the declared value and provide the importer an opportunity to be heard before proceeding to reassess the value. It ruled that the importers' letters consenting to the enhanced value could not be construed as a waiver or abandonment of their right to challenge the reassessment, as the communications indicated they were made under duress to avoid demurrage and detention charges. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the CESTAT orders, and restored the Commissioner (Appeals) orders.
The key ratio decidendi is:
1. Declared values cannot be rejected solely on the basis of NIDB data without cogent reasons and evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical/similar goods.
2. The proper officer must record reasons for doubting the declared value and provide the importer an opportunity to be heard before undertaking reassessment.
3. The importers' letters consenting to enhanced values did not amount to a waiver or abandonment of their right to challenge the reassessment, as the communications indicated they were made under duress.
W.P.(C)-3612/20242024:DHC:9155-DB
Parties: SABA SIMRAN Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
The High Court held that the personal jewellery carried by the petitioner should not be subject to the monetary restrictions under the Baggage Rules, 2016, as they were her personal effects. The court distinguished between "personal jewellery" and "jewellery" in general, based on a clarification provided by the customs authorities in a previous circular. The court referred to its earlier judgments and the Supreme Court's decision, which established that personal jewellery carried by a passenger should not be considered as prohibited or smuggled goods. The court quashed the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs and remitted the matter back to him to evaluate the petitioner's request for release of the seized jewellery in light of the court's observations.
Bombay High Court
WP/11376/2022
Parties: LAXMAN SUBHASH KOLI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANGESH S. PATIL, JUSTICE PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR
The High Court of Bombay allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, holding that the caste scrutiny committee's finding that the pre-constitutional records showing the petitioner's ancestors as 'Koli Dhor' or 'Dhor Koli' are contrary to his claim of belonging to the 'Tokre Koli' scheduled tribe is legally unsustainable.
The court noted that both 'Tokre Koli' and 'Koli Dhor' are listed under the same entry in the Schedule Tribe Order, and therefore the pre-constitutional records of the petitioner's family describing them as 'Koli Dhor' should not be treated as contrary to the 'Tokre Koli' claim. The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court rulings in Milind and Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, finding that those principles are not directly applicable here.
Ultimately, the High Court quashed the committee's order and directed it to immediately issue a tribe validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to the 'Tokre Koli' scheduled tribe.
REVN/11/2023
Parties: SANJAY BAPURAO AAREWAR Vs SANGITA SANJAY AAREWAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANDIPKUMAR CHANDRABHAN MORE
The High Court dismissed the husband's revision application, upholding the appellate court's order enhancing the maintenance amount payable to the divorced wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The High Court held that even after divorce, the divorced wife can claim relief under the Act if the domestic violence is relatable to the period of the domestic relationship, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi. The High Court rejected the husband's contention that the divorced wife is not entitled to such relief, overruling its own previous judgment in Sadhana v. Hemant.
CARBP/416/2019
Parties: NEILAN INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED. Vs POWERICA LIMITED.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHRI ARIF S. DOCTOR
The High Court held that the Partial Award, which upheld the validity of the assignment of the contracts by NEC to the Petitioner under Sudanese law, was final as the Respondent did not challenge it. The court rejected the Respondent's arguments that the assignment violated public policy under Indian law and the fundamental policy of Indian law, finding that the Respondent's challenge to the merits of the Partial Award was not permissible under the Arbitration Act. The court further held that the assignment was valid as per the terms of the contracts, which allowed for assignment to assignees. Accordingly, the court allowed the enforcement of the Final Award in favor of the Petitioner.
Quick Tip: Click on the case name to instantly view the Judgment!
Calcutta High Court
WPA/14216/2023
Parties: GOURMOHON GIRI vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
The High Court at Calcutta held that the private respondents (Nos. 8-10) have illegally constructed a building on land belonging to the Irrigation Department (Dag Nos. 1320 and 1321) without any authority or sanction plan. The court directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to take appropriate steps against the private respondents in accordance with law, while keeping in mind the pendency of a civil suit on the same issue. The court found that the writ petitioner (Gourmohon Giri) has the locus standi to lodge a complaint against the illegal encroachment, and the purpose of justice would be served by directing the authorities to take necessary action.
CRR/2709/2023
Parties: RADHA BAGREE vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
The High Court of Calcutta held that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, Radha Bagree, who was a director of the company that owned the Bagree Market where a devastating fire broke out. The court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the criminal proceedings against her under Sections 120B and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11J, 11L, and 11C of the West Bengal Fire Service Act.
The court found that as a director in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company, the petitioner could not escape her responsibility as the owner to provide and maintain adequate fire prevention and safety measures, even though the building was constructed before the relevant provisions came into force. The court held that the initial responsibility to provide fire safety measures lies with the owner, and the proviso to Section 11C only relates to additional measures to be taken by the occupiers.
The court concluded that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and her company, among others, for offenses under various provisions of the West Bengal Fire Service Act, which the trial court shall consider during the trial. The court affirmed the order of the Magistrate rejecting the petitioner's prayer for discharge and directed the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously.
CRR/3904/2016
Parties: SMT. SUNITA DAS vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the opposite party, as the Civil Court had already declared the petitioner as the legally married wife of the opposite party. The High Court partly set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, who had denied maintenance to the petitioner on the ground that she failed to prove her marriage.
The High Court affirmed the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000 per month awarded by the Trial Court to the petitioner, and the enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000 per month awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge to the petitioner's daughter. The High Court directed the opposite party to pay the maintenance amounts as ordered.
FMA/358/2013
Parties: SRI BARUN MUKHERJEE AND ANOTHER vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
The High Court of Calcutta upheld the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had allowed the claim against the National Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle. The court found that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, and that the driver's license was invalid at the time of the accident.
The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that the insurance company should pay the compensation amount to the claimants and then recover it from the owner of the vehicle, since the owner had allowed the driver to operate the vehicle without a valid license, thereby violating the terms of the insurance policy. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle.
CS/163/2020
Parties: SMT. URMILA KUMARI BOTHRA vs MR. ASHOK CHAUDHURY
Judge(s): JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
The High Court at Calcutta held that the suit filed by the plaintiff, Smt. Urmila Kumari Bothra, against the defendant, Mr. Ashok Chaudhury, for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 42,00,822/- along with interest is not maintainable before the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.
The court found that the transaction between the parties was a commercial dispute, as the plaintiff had lent the money to the defendant for business purposes. Therefore, the suit should have been filed before the Commercial Division, with leave under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of money lending without a valid license under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940. As per Section 13 of the Act, the court cannot pass a decree in favor of an unlicensed money lender, but can provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the penalty and obtain a license before proceeding with the suit.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for judgment upon admission and directed the plaintiff to present the suit before the appropriate court in accordance with the law.