Daily Alert for 25-10-2024
Supreme Court of India
Case Name: Crl.A. No.-002129-002129 - 2014
Judge(s): JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Parties: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE VS RAMJAN KHAN
Summary: The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused (the respondents) of the murder of Naseem Khan, as the prosecution failed to conclusively prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the trial court had relied on the testimonies of the deceased's mother (PW-8) and younger brothers (PW-5 and PW-9) to convict the accused, but the High Court had rightly found these witnesses to be unreliable due to material omissions and contradictions in their statements. The Court agreed with the High Court's observation that the omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of these key witnesses went to the core of the prosecution's case, and therefore the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court, dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's acquittal of the accused.
Case Name: Crl.A. No.-004402-004402 - 2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Parties: RAMRATAN@RAMSWAROOP VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Summary: The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections 437(3) and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by imposing onerous conditions for granting bail that went beyond ensuring the presence of the accused during investigation and trial. The conditions of removing a wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant were found to be tantamount to deprivation of civil rights, rather than measures to ensure the accused's presence. The Supreme Court set aside these conditions but allowed the appellants to continue on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, with the other conditions imposed by the High Court remaining in force. The court also clarified that the observations made in the order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending civil suit.
Case Name: C.A. No.-000272-000272 - 2012
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Parties: NEERAJ SUD VS JASWINDER SINGH (MINOR)
Summary: The Supreme Court of India has held that the doctor (Dr. Neeraj Sud) and the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGI) cannot be held liable for medical negligence in the treatment of the patient. The court found that the deterioration of the patient's condition after the surgery does not, by itself, establish negligence on the part of the medical professionals, as complications can arise even in the absence of any negligence. The court emphasized that a medical professional can be held liable for negligence only if it is proven that they failed to exercise the requisite skill and care that they possessed, or if they were not qualified to perform the surgery. In the present case, the court found that the complainants failed to adduce any evidence to establish such negligence on the part of the doctor or the hospital. The judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had held the doctor and the hospital liable, has been set aside, and the original judgment of the State Commission dismissing the complaint has been restored.
Delhi High Court
Case Name: CS(OS)-2167/19932024:DHC:8281
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
Parties: SH. AJIT SINGH Vs SMT.ADARSH KAUR GILL
Summary: The High Court held that the plaintiff's suit for partition of the property is maintainable despite it being a partial partition, as the rule against partial partition applies only to coparcenary or joint family properties and not to separate/self-acquired properties held as tenants-in-common. The Court further held that the defendant no.1 is entitled to retain possession of the property as a subrogate mortgagee until the plaintiff and other co-sharers contribute their share of the redemption amount, and that the lease deed in favor of the defendant no.1 is genuine. The Court granted a preliminary decree of partition, leaving it open to the parties to seek final division by metes and bounds or sale at a later stage.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-14324/20242024:DHC:8264-DB
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Parties: M/S RAVINDRA NATH Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi upheld the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to cancel the tender for a parking site, even though the petitioner was the sole bidder. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. CWE-SOMA Consortium, which held that the tender issuing authority has the right to cancel a tender if it attracts only a single bidder, in order to ensure greater participation and competitiveness. The court found that the reasons provided by MCD for cancelling the tender, such as the need for greater participation and revenue generation, were valid and in accordance with the law. The court also noted that the petitioner is free to participate in the re-tendering process and cannot claim exclusivity as the sole bidder in the earlier tender.
Case Name: W.P.(CRL)-1169/20172024:DHC:8284
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
Parties: SATPAL KALRA & ANR Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the FIR registered under Sections 420/406/506/120B IPC against the petitioners cannot be quashed, as the withdrawal of the previous complaint by the complainant did not amount to an acquittal on merits. The court distinguished the case from the Supreme Court precedents relied upon by the petitioners, as those dealt with situations where the previous complaint was dismissed on merits. The court observed that the registration of the FIR while the complaint case was pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate was not legally barred, as the Code provides a procedure to be followed in such cases. On examining the merits, the court found a prima facie case made out against the accused (Petitioner No. 2) based on the investigation and materials on record, which is a matter of trial. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that no observations have been made on the merits of the case against Petitioner No. 1, who was not charge-sheeted.
Case Name: CM(M)-1010/20212024:DHC:8322
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Parties: IQBAL SINGH AND ORS Vs DR A K GUPTA
Summary: The Court held that the tenant's voluntary agreement to enhance the rent by 10% every year, as per the affidavit-cum-undertaking signed by the tenant in 2000, is a valid bilateral contract that binds the tenant. The court found that the rent enhancement was not a unilateral action by the landlord, but rather an agreement made by the tenant himself, which he subsequently acted upon for around 9-10 years. The court ruled that the tenant cannot retract from this voluntary agreement, as it does not violate the statutory provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, particularly Sections 6A and 8. The court set aside the Rent Control Tribunal's order and restored the Rent Controller's earlier order, directing the tenant to pay the rent as per the agreed enhancement.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-2765/20232024:DHC:8297
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Parties: RATUL PURI Vs BANK OF BARODA
Summary: The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by Ratul Puri and set aside the order passed by the respondent-Bank of Baroda classifying the petitioner's account as 'fraud'. The High Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the respondent-bank did not provide the petitioner with any show cause notice, relevant documents, or an opportunity to be heard before categorizing his account as 'fraud', which has serious civil consequences for the borrower. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Aggarwal, which held that the principles of natural justice must be followed in such cases. The High Court directed the respondent-bank to remove the petitioner's name from the Central Fraud Registry within 15 days.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-9983/20202024:DHC:8283
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Parties: UDAY KAUSHISH Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Summary: The main legal issues were: - Whether the lease deed dated 17.09.1931 mandated renewal of the lease for a further period of 70 years after the initial 90-year lease term expired. - Whether the subject property was "nazul land" under the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957, and thus subject to the DDA's disposal rules. - Whether the DDA was bound by the terms of the 1931 lease deed or could unilaterally refuse to renew the lease. The court held that the 1931 lease deed did mandate renewal of the lease for a further 70 years, as per the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in the case. The court also held that the subject property was not "nazul land" and the DDA was bound by the terms of the 1931 lease deed.
Bombay High Court
Case Name: WP/3248/2024
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE
Parties: LEMON SEEDS HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
Summary: The High Court upheld the validity of the auction conducted by the Competent Authority under the MPID Act for the sale of the subject property. The Court held that the petitioner, who had successfully bid for the property, is not entitled to a refund of the purchase price paid, as the auction terms provided sufficient caution and disclosure to the bidders. The Court emphasized that the MPID Act framework is distinct from laws like the SARFAESI Act, and the principles applicable to auctions under those laws cannot be directly applied here. The Court noted that once the property vested in the Competent Authority by operation of law and the attachment was lifted, the petitioner cannot seek further relief, especially since the petitioner's previous application seeking similar relief was rejected by the Designated Court.
Case Name: WP/2888/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANGESH S. PATIL, JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME
Parties: SHAIKH RAFE MOINUDDIN AND ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Summary: The High Court of Bombay held that the petitioners, who were appointed as laboratory assistants in a minority institution (Sir Sayyed College), were not entitled to have their appointments approved without securing prior permission or no-objection certificate from the education authorities. The court found that there is no statutory provision or policy that grants absolute and unfettered privilege to minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution to bypass the prescribed recruitment procedures. The court relied on the relevant government resolutions and circulars which mandated obtaining prior permission before making such appointments, and rejected the petitioners' arguments that the minority institution status exempted them from this requirement. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order rejecting the approval of the petitioners' appointments was valid.
Case Name: WP/3592/2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Parties: DAGDABAI VITTHAL KADAM Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT AND ORS
Summary: The High Court of Bombay held that the 92-year-old petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation by provision of land in Sangli, in the same manner as other affected persons from the village, despite her name not appearing in the records prior to the "appointed date" of October 10, 1985. The court found that under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, inheritance of existing rights is permitted, and the petitioner inherited the property upon her husband's demise in 1998. The court rejected the respondents' argument of treating the petitioner and her step-sons as a "single unit", as the step-sons had been allotted individual rehabilitation units. The court directed the respondents to urgently allot the petitioner land of 300 sq.ft. with a dwelling unit in Village Palus, District Sangli, within 12 weeks.
Case Name: WP/7244/2018
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Parties: NIZAMUDDIN HUSAINSAHEB PIRJADE AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS REVENUE AND ORS
Summary: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the petitioners had failed to explain their silence for over 13 years between 2005 and 2018 after the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh consideration. The High Court observed that the petitioners' conduct was not consistent with that of diligent litigants who had pursued the matter up to the Supreme Court. It held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked due to the long delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. The High Court clarified that it has not delved into the merits of the case, and the petitioners are free to pursue any other rights they may have in accordance with law.
Case Name: CRA/231/2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Parties: SULOCHANA DIVAKAR PARKAR Vs ASHOK SHAMRAO BHATTE (DECEASED) THR.LRS.
Summary: The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has set aside the eviction decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, holding that the appellate court committed a jurisdictional error in decreeing the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement. The High Court observed that the original plaintiff and his son, on whose bona fide requirement the suit was based, had passed away during the pendency of the proceedings. The court held that the legal heirs of the plaintiff and his son were required to plead and establish their own bona fide requirement, which they had failed to do. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court concluded that the bona fide requirement pleaded by the original plaintiff had become extinct upon his demise, and the legal heirs could not continue the suit on that basis. The High Court directed the legal heirs to file a fresh suit if they wanted to seek possession of the premises on the ground of their own bona fide requirement.
Case Name: WP/8419/2008
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Parties: SHANTINATH DADA CHOUGULE (DECD,)BY LRS. - ASHOK SHANTINATH CHOUGULE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Bombay held that the Divisional Commissioner's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1848 to withdraw the acquisition of his land was not valid. The High Court found that the Commissioner had failed to properly consider the petitioner's arguments that the slab for acquisition was incorrectly calculated by including a mortgaged land that did not belong to the petitioner. The High Court also noted that the possession of the land had remained with the petitioner, and therefore the jurisdictional requirement for maintaining a Section 48(1) application was satisfied. Additionally, the High Court observed that the acquired land was a small parcel intended for a project affected person who had since passed away, and the legal heirs had agreed to sell the land back to the petitioner. Considering these factors, the High Court quashed the acquisition of the petitioner's land and allowed the petition.
Case Name: IA/11266/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL
Parties: RANJAN VASUDEO KOLAMBE Vs APPA ALIAS HANMANT MAROTI HATNURE AND ANOTHER
Summary: The High Court upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the plaintiff's application for interim injunction against the defendants. The court found that at the prima facie stage, the plaintiff has not established a case of copyright infringement. The court noted that the defendants have valid copyright registrations for their "Class Notes" books, while the plaintiff's second book's registration is still pending. The court also observed that the content in the books on Indian economics and constitution appears to be factual information from the public domain, which cannot be monopolized. The court held that the trial court has exercised its discretion reasonably in refusing the interim injunction, and the High Court will not interfere with this discretion unless it is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The High Court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the main suit, while clarifying that the observations made in this judgment are only in the context of the interim relief and should not influence the final decision on the merits.
Case Name: WP/6938/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
Parties: SHRI. BALASO BHIMGONDA PATIL Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SHRI. MALIKARJUN MANE THE JT DISTRICT REGISTRAR (STAMP) CLASS-1
Summary: The High Court of Bombay held that the trial court was not justified in sending the unregistered partition deed to the Collector of Stamps for payment of stamp duty and penalty. The court ruled that registration of a partition deed of joint Hindu family property is not mandatory, and the stamp duty can be paid as per Article 46 of the Bombay Stamp Act, which only requires a stamp duty of Rs. 100. The subsequent use of the land for construction of shops cannot be a factor for determining the stamp duty, as the stamp duty is based on the nature of the land at the time the document was executed. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and the Collector's assessment of the stamp duty and penalty, directing the trial court to consider the unregistered partition deed as evidence subject to its proof.
Case Name: CRA/455/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
Parties: KAUSA JAMA MASJID TRUST THR. ITS CHIEF TRUSTEE HAROON QAMRUDIN RAUT Vs SMT. FASHIBAI BHAGIRATH BHAGAT
Summary: The High Court of Bombay allowed the defendant-trust's revision application and quashed the trial court's order. The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaratory relief for their easementary right of way through the defendant-trust's property, which is a Waqf property, is not maintainable in the civil court. The court ruled that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Sections 83 and 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and the plaintiffs would have to approach the Waqf Tribunal to adjudicate this dispute. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, while keeping all contentions of the parties open for them to approach the appropriate forum in the future.
Case Name: WP/14437/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Parties: B.K. POLIMEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THRO. ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Vs UNION OF INDIA NINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE THOR. ITS SECRETAR AND ORS
Summary: The High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs erred in confiscating and possibly directing the destruction of seven drawings by renowned artists F.N. Souza and Akbar Padamsee on the grounds of obscenity. The court ruled that the ACC's decision was based solely on his personal opinion of obscenity, ignoring legal precedents and expert opinions on the artistic merit of the works. The court emphasized that public officials cannot impose their personal moral standards to censor art and expression, which are protected under the Constitution. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the release of the confiscated artworks to the petitioner within two weeks.
Case Name: WP/15283/2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Parties: SHANTINAGAR ZOPADPATTIDHARAK SANGH THR ITS PRESIDENT AND ORS Vs THE UNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS AND ORS
Summary: The High Court of Bombay held that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), including the First, Second, and Third Schedules, apply to land acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act). The court quashed the rejections of the petitioners' claims for rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Second Schedule of the 2013 Act, and directed the Competent Authorities to decide the petitioners' representations afresh, considering the specific provisions of the 2013 Act, rather than relying solely on a Manual of Guidelines. The court did not pronounce on the merits of the individual cases, but held that the Competent Authorities must apply the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act to the facts of each case.
Case Name: FAST/5568/2015
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
Parties: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs SHRI BASAVRAJ VIRUPASAPA JALSAKARE AND OTHERS
Summary: The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision to assess the deceased's annual income at Rs. 1,15,640. The court held that the Tribunal was justified in determining the income based on the single year's income tax return provided, and that the Tribunal's calculation of the Rs. 20,68,720 compensation amount was proper, including the consideration of future prospects, dependency, and the deceased's age. The court found no error in the Tribunal's approach and upheld its judgment.
Case Name: SA/547/2019
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY A. DESHMUKH
Parties: SMT. SUMATI @ ASHA WD/O ANIL SUBHEDAR AND OTHERS Vs SMT. YASHODHARA WD/O SUNIL SUBHEDAR AND OTHERS
Summary: The High Court held that the suit property was the absolute property of late Sushilabai under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that the will of her husband Kashinath had no legal effect on the property. The Court found that the appellants (plaintiffs) did not have the right to claim pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, as they were not Class-I heirs of Sushilabai as per the Act. The respondents (defendants) were also not Class-I heirs, and the right of pre-emption under the Act only applies to the property of a Hindu male who dies intestate. While dismissing the appeal, the Court directed the Executing Court to conclude the execution proceedings within six months, and to consider the directions given in the judgment regarding the partition of the suit property.
Case Name: WP/1508/2024
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Parties: GTI INFOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
Summary: The High Court of Bombay held that the petitioner (GTI Infotel Private Limited) failed to establish that it had exercised the purchase preference option for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) during the bidding process, as required by the tender conditions. The court found that the tender documents and the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal provided a clear and distinct mechanism for bidders to opt for purchase preference, which the petitioner did not avail. The court further noted that the petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence, such as screenshots or system-generated records, to substantiate its claim of having selected the purchase preference option. In contrast, the successful bidder (respondent no. 3) had clearly demonstrated the exercise of purchase preference as an MSE. Additionally, the court observed that the bid price modification by the procuring entity (respondent no. 1) was a necessary and proportionate response to the reduction in the scope of work, and was carried out in accordance with the tender provisions. The court also noted the delay in the petitioner's filing of the writ petition and the substantial progress already made by the successful bidder in the project, which further weakened the petitioner's case. Considering the public interest in the timely completion of the "Track and Trace" services, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Name: IAL/31556/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE R. I. CHAGLA
Parties: DIIARAMPAL SATYAPAL FOODS LTD Vs PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD
Summary: The High Court of Bombay dismissed the Defendant's application to vacate the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order granted in favor of the Plaintiff on the ground of passing off. The court held that the Defendant failed to show that the Plaintiff made any false or misleading statements in the plaint, as required under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to vacate the ex-parte order. The court found that the Plaintiff's explanation in a withdrawn rectification application about how they coined their "MAZELO" mark was consistent with their case in the plaint, and did not amount to an admission that the mark is descriptive. The court also rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the Defendant's "MAZE" mark since 2019, as it was based on mere conjectures without positive evidence. The court considered the public interest involved, especially as the products in question were edible, and dismissed the Defendant's application.