Daily Alert for 22-05-2024
Delhi High Court
Case Name: FAO(OS)-143/20232024:DHC:4190-DB
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Parties: MS VEENETA SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS Vs MS JYOTI GUPTA
Summary: The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta, holding that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the properties of Ms. Vaneeta Gupta would devolve upon her daughter (the respondent) and not the appellants (Ms. Vaneeta Gupta's mother and brothers). The court rejected the appellants' claims of having purchased the properties from Ms. Vaneeta Gupta or providing funds for their purchase, as the documentary evidence was found to be inadmissible and inconsistent with the records of the probate proceedings. The court also rejected the appellants' arguments that the suit has abated due to the death of Ms. Vaneeta Gupta's mother, and that the respondent is not entitled to succeed under the Hindu Succession Act due to a previous settlement between Ms. Vaneeta Gupta's parents.
Case Name: FAO(OS)-35/20232024:DHC:4188-DB
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Parties: PARESH DANDONA Vs SUKRUTI DUGAL & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 21st December, 2018, passed in the underlying civil suit, was to be vacated. The court directed the appellant to proceed with the execution proceedings to recover possession of his portion and license fees as per the consent decree dated 4th February, 2015. Further, the court directed respondent no. 2 to deposit two-thirds of the sale consideration received from the sale of properties that fell to her share under the consent decree, to secure the interests of respondent nos. 1 and 3. However, the court noted that the respondents had filed false affidavits and suppressed material facts, amounting to an abuse of the legal process and contempt of court. Therefore, the court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-15161/20232024:DHC:4165
Judge(s): JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Parties: MD SHAMI AHMAD ANSARI & ANR. Vs JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS.
Summary: The main legal issue was whether the appointment of the respondent (Prof. Eqbal Hussain) as Pro-Vice Chancellor (PVC) and subsequently as Officiating Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the Jamia Millia Islamia University was in accordance with the provisions of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 and the Statutes framed thereunder, as well as the UGC Regulations. The court found that the appointment of the respondent as PVC was in violation of the Statutes, as the Executive Council (EC), which is the appointing authority for the PVC, was not involved in the process. The court also noted that there was no extraordinary emergent situation that warranted the Vice-Chancellor to invoke the emergency powers under Section 11(3) of the Act to appoint the respondent as PVC. With respect to the respondent's subsequent appointment as Officiating VC, the court held that since the initial appointment as PVC was invalid, the continuation of the respondent as Officiating VC was also unsustainable. In the absence of a valid appointment, the court issued a writ of quo warranto quashing the appointment of the respondent as PVC and Officiating VC. The court directed the Visitor (the President of India) to appoint an eligible person as VC (Officiating)/Administrator (Temporary) within one week, and initiate the process for the appointment of a regular VC within two weeks thereafter.
Case Name: RC.REV.-339/20162024:DHC:4156
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties: HARDIAL SINGH Vs VIVEK GUPTA
Summary: The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the tenant's application for leave to contest the landlord's eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court found that the landlord's requirement of the premises for starting an IT consultancy business, while using the adjoining portion as a back office, was bona fide. The court rejected the tenant's arguments that the landlord already had alternate accommodation or that the requirement was not in the present, holding that the landlord's choice could not be compelled and that partial use of the premises was impractical until the full possession was restored. The single judge bench found no perversity in the Rent Controller's order and declined to interfere under the restricted revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act.
Case Name: RC.REV.-120/20222024:DHC:4157
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties: YATTI DAWAR AND ORS. Vs ASHOK KR. GUPTA
Summary: The High Court of Delhi upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the petitioners' (tenants') application for leave to contest the eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court found that the petitioners' applications did not contain any grounds for seeking leave to contest, likely due to the negligence of their counsel. However, the court held that the tenants cannot be penalized for the incompetence of their counsel, and the landlord's bona fide requirement of the premises for his son's garment business was not in doubt, even though the son was engaged in a different business. The court did not find any infirmity in the Additional Rent Controller's order and dismissed the petition.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-3659/20232024:DHC:4161
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Parties: MD. SHAMIM Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA) & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ for resettlement on an alternative piece of land, finding the petition hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The court held that the offer made to the petitioner in 2006 had long since lapsed, and the petitioner had delayed in asserting his rights, allowing the cause of action to drift away. Relying on various Supreme Court precedents, the court observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is a discretionary relief that can be denied on account of delay and laches, and if the delay in filing the writ petition is beyond the period of limitation prescribed for a similar civil suit, the court can treat the delay as unreasonable and decline to entertain the petition on merits. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, without examining the merits of the case.
Case Name: MAC.APP.-992/20172024:DHC:4166
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Parties: SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURACE CO LTD Vs DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, but also found that the deceased child, who was 15 years old and driving without a valid license and helmet, contributed to the accident. Considering the contributory negligence, the court reduced the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal by 50%, from Rs. 10,19,640/- to Rs. 8,55,001/-, with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition. The court exercised its suo motu powers to modify the compensation amount based on principles laid down in previous judgments.
Calcutta High Court
Case Name: FMAT/344/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE HARISH TANDON, JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
Parties: DEVASREE BISWAS NEE DAS vs SRI SOUMYA KANTI BISWAS
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of an application to recall an ex parte decree of divorce. The court held that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause to condone the 92-day delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The court found the appellant's claims of lack of knowledge about the hearing dates and her advocate's post-operative syndrome to be lacking in bona fides, given the appellant's active participation in other related proceedings. Emphasizing the need to balance the mandatory nature of the Limitation Act's Section 3 and the discretionary scope of Section 5, the court concluded that the appellant's conduct lacked due diligence and did not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Case Name: WPA/2579/2016
Judge(s): JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Parties: BALLY JUTE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. vs JUTE COMMISSIONER & ORS.
Summary: The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Bally Jute Company, holding that there was no clear evidence that the company violated the orders issued by the Jute Commissioner in November-December 2015 restricting raw jute stock. The court found that the company had entered contracts for purchasing raw jute prior to the November 24, 2015 order, and was acting in accordance with the orders to reduce its stock to the mandated 2 months' consumption level. The court quashed the FIR lodged by the Jute Commissioner against the company, as the allegations of violation were not supported by evidence and the consequential criminal proceedings were vitiated.
Case Name: WPA/5071/2011
Judge(s): JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE
Parties: SUTAPA HATAI vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of her social status certificate by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's caste certificate by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was the certificate issuing authority, was valid as it was done following the prescribed procedure under the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. The court found that the petitioner had obtained the caste certificate by furnishing false information and misrepresenting her caste, and that her appointment to the reserved post was therefore illegal. While the court did not direct the petitioner to refund the salaries she had received until May 2011, it also held that she has no right to claim the withheld salaries, as her employment contract was void ab initio due to fraud. The court noted that there was no irregularity or illegality in the decision-making process leading to the cancellation of the petitioner's caste certificate, and that the decision was based on evidence. The court also held that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to prove the authenticity of her caste certificate but could not do so.
Case Name: WPA/9585/2011
Judge(s): JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE
Parties: TARUN KUMAR DUTTA vs CHAIRMAN, UCO BANK & ORS.
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable as the appellate authority is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court found that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner exhibited a pre-determined mind of the Disciplinary Authority, rendering the subsequent proceedings a mere formality. Further, the charge-sheet was found to be bad in law as it did not comply with the mandatory statutory requirement of disclosing the list of documents and witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of punishment and the order of the appellate authority, and directed the bank to restore the petitioner's pay scale and repay the amount deducted from his gratuity. The Court clarified that the bank may recover the outstanding loan amount from the successors of the deceased borrower in accordance with law.
Case Name: WPA/10583/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA
Parties: VANEETA PATNAIK vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta held that the local committee erred in rejecting the petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment as being barred by limitation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The court found that the local committee did not properly consider the definition of "sexual harassment" under Section 3(2) of the Act, which includes implied or explicit threats of detrimental treatment in employment and creation of a hostile work environment. The court held that the incidents alleged to have occurred after April 2023 had a nexus with the earlier alleged acts of sexual harassment, and therefore the complaint was within the limitation period. The High Court set aside the local committee's order and directed it to conclude the proceedings on the petitioner's complaint on merits.
Case Name: WPA/11224/2018
Judge(s): JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE
Parties: SUKUMAR PAL vs EASTERN COALFIELD LIMITED
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta held that the respondents' decision denying employment to the petitioners under the land loser category was not a reasoned order and was arbitrary. The court found that the respondents failed to properly apply the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy in effect at the time of land acquisition, which promised a 1:1 ratio of employment for every acre of land acquired until 31 December 1984. The court directed the respondents to determine the date of land acquisition and consider the petitioners' claim strictly based on the policy prevailing at that time, and provide a reasoned decision. This is a batch matter, as the court had previously disposed of similar writ petitions by other identically situated candidates in WP No. 26708(W) of 2015.
Case Name: WPA/12929/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Parties: G. R. ASSOCIATES AND OTHERS vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta held that the bank's decision to transfer the Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) to the Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) rather than accepting the petitioners' private offer was valid. The court found that the acquisition of "financial assets" by an ARC under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act stands on a different footing than the enforcement of "security interest" in "secured assets" under Section 13. The court ruled that the bank acted reasonably and transparently in the bidding process, and was within its discretion to choose the ARC's higher offer over the petitioners' subsequent private offer. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the bank's actions.
Case Name: CO/602/2017
Judge(s): JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Parties: MD. JOHIRUDDIN MALLICK & OTHERS vs AKBAR ALI @ SK, AKBAR & ANOTHER
Summary: The High Court held that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to decide the ownership and title of the disputed property, as the determination of whether the property is a waqf (religious endowment) or secular property falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal as per Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995. The court noted that there were competing claims by the parties - the plaintiffs claimed part of the property was secular, while the defendants claimed the entire property was waqf. Given this genuine dispute about the status of the property, the court set aside the lower court's order rejecting the defendants' application to reject the plaint, and held that the matter should be decided by the Waqf Tribunal and not the civil court.
Case Name: CRR/459/2020
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Parties: ASHOK KUMAR vs THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
Summary: The High Court held that the order dated 27.06.2019 allowing further investigation was not in accordance with law, as the CBI's application for further investigation was beyond the CVC's report and recommendations. The court noted that the CVC's report dated 31.01.2014 only recommended departmental action against the petitioner and did not provide any grounds or reasons for further investigation. The CBI's application dated 24.06.2019 for further investigation also did not cite any new evidence or material to justify the prayer. The court observed that the trial court's order allowing further investigation was an abuse of the process of law and against the principles of the interest of justice, as it did not provide any proper reasons for the same. The High Court, therefore, allowed the petitioner's revision petition, set aside the order dated 27.06.2019 permitting further investigation, and quashed the order. The court held that the constitutional courts have the power to order further investigation, even after the filing of a chargesheet and framing of charges, to ensure a fair investigation and trial. However, in the present case, the CBI's application and the trial court's order did not meet the required legal standards.
Case Name: CRR/1504/2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Parties: ABDUL RAFIK MONDAL @ RAFIK MONDAL & ANR. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta upheld the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners (Abdul Rafik Mondal and Afridi Mondal) in a criminal case, finding that the Magistrate had granted bail without properly considering the materials on record and the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioners. However, considering the liberty of the person involved, the Court directed the petitioners to surrender before the Sessions Judge within 30 days and apply for regular bail, which the Sessions Judge shall consider afresh.
Case Name: FMA/254/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Parties: WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. vs SRI SUPRATIM MUKHERJEE
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta held that the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) must consider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Office Executive, as he had cured his temporary vision impairment (high myopia) through Lasik surgery before the completion of the recruitment process. The court found that the petitioner had the essential qualifications at the time of the advertisement, and the nature of his medical condition was temporary and curable, as per the company's own regulations. The court ruled that the respondent's approach of not reconsidering the petitioner's candidacy after the post-surgery medical report, despite the earlier court order directing such reconsideration, was "recalcitrant" and not in compliance with the court's directions.
Case Name: MAT/14/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE, JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Parties: SUJIT BISWAS vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS
Summary: The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's decision to not entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the appointment and continued employment of the private respondent Arup Sarkar as the Manager of the cooperative society, even after his retirement. The High Court held that the appellant has an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 to file a dispute before the Registrar regarding the management or affairs of the cooperative society. The High Court noted that the existence of an alternative remedy is a strong ground for the High Court to refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction, particularly when the statute itself provides a mechanism for resolution of such disputes. The two-judge Bench unanimously agreed that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy, as the grievances raised by the appellant involved disputed questions of fact which could be more appropriately decided by the statutory forum.
Case Name: MAT/2137/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE, JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Parties: NIMAI RAY @ NIMAI ROY vs THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ANR.
Summary: The High Court held that the writ petition filed by the respondents (Nimai Ray and Bibi Najira) challenging the Panchayat election results is not maintainable, as they have the alternative statutory remedy of filing an election petition under the West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's consistent position that election disputes must be resolved through the prescribed statutory forum, and the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked except in special circumstances. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the respondents' grievances, and left them free to pursue the statutory remedy if they are still entitled to do so. This is a batch matter, as the appeal was filed by the State Election Commission and the Commissioner against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Case Name: CRA (SB)/169/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE
Parties: MAJIBAR @ MUJIBOR RAHAMAN vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the prosecution's case was prejudiced by the non-examination of the complainant (Inspector Ganguly) and the investigating officer, which cast a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Habeeb Mohd. v. State of Hyderabad, which held that the non-examination of a material witness can prejudice the accused's defense. Accordingly, the High Court acquitted the appellants, finding them not guilty of the charges.