Daily Alert for 18-11-2024
Supreme Court of India
Case Name: C.A. No.-017529-017530 - 2017
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Parties: GURMEET SINGH AND ORS. ETC. VS THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Summary: The Supreme Court held that the service rendered by the appellants as work charge employees prior to their regularization should be counted as qualifying service for the grant of benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988. The court found that the differential treatment meted out to the appellants, who were part of the same establishment and similarly situated to other employees granted the same benefits, was unjustified. The Division Bench of the High Court had earlier dismissed the intra-court appeals filed by the appellants, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge. However, the Supreme Court has now reversed the impugned judgments and allowed the appeals.
Case Name: C.A. No.-012509-012509 - 2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Parties: SATYENDRA SINGH VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Summary: The Supreme Court held that the inquiry proceedings against the appellant were vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law, as the inquiry officer failed to record the oral evidence of any witness to establish the charges punishable with a major penalty, as required under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The Court relied on its previous judgments which have held that mere production of documents is not enough, and the contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. The High Court was found to have erred in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the Tribunal, which had quashed the penalty imposed on the appellant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Tribunal's order, thereby allowing the appeal.
Delhi High Court
Case Name: LPA-1113/20242024:DHC:8869-DB
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Parties: ANITA GUPTA SHARMA Vs CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
Summary: The High Court of Delhi upheld the decision of the Chamber Allotment Committee in allotting the vacant Chamber No. 103 to respondents No. 4 and 5, who were senior in seniority compared to the petitioner, Anita Gupta Sharma. While the Court acknowledged that the allotment process lacked transparency, as the vacancy was not publicly notified, it found that the petitioner did not have a legal right to claim a particular chamber, and the respondents' seniority took precedence. The Court, however, directed that in case any chamber on the first floor falls vacant in the future, the petitioner's request for re-allotment and switching of chambers may be considered on humanitarian grounds in accordance with the law.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-13497/20222024:DHC:8816
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Parties: HARE RAM SINGH Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the petitioner was a victim of sophisticated "phishing" and "vishing" scams, and was not negligent in the unauthorized transactions from his bank account. The court found that the bank failed to have adequate security measures to prevent such cyber attacks, and also failed to promptly act on the petitioner's complaint to recover the funds. The court set aside the Banking Ombudsman's order and directed the bank to compensate the petitioner for the full amount lost along with interest and costs, as the transactions fell under the "zero liability" provision of the RBI's Customer Protection Circular.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-15410/20242024:DHC:8868-DB
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Parties: NONGOTHOMBAM HEROJIT MEITEI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the petitioner, a Constable (General Duty) in the CISF, should be granted the requisite relaxation in height to participate in the selection process for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The court relied on its previous judgments in Tholu Rocky v. Director General CISF & Ors. and Inspector TD Cyril Mimin Zou v. Union of India & Ors., which had held that there should be no distinction in height requirements between regular promotion and promotion through LDCE, as it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to take part in the ongoing selection process after granting him the necessary relaxation in height and to consider his candidature for promotion through the LDCE.
Bombay High Court
Case Name: APEAL/316/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE R.P. MOHITE-DERE, JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN
Parties: SUNIL DHARMA MANE Vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY AND ANR.
Summary: The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the denial of bail to the appellant, finding sufficient prima facie material to indicate his involvement as a co-conspirator in the murder of Mansukh Hiran. The court examined the detailed evidence, including witness statements, CDR records, CCTV footage, and circumstantial evidence, and concluded that the appellant played an important role in the conspiracy and execution of the crime.
Case Name: WPL/34124/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA
Parties: SANDEEP S. GHANDAT Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ASSISTANT GNERAL MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF SUPERVISION
Summary: The court held that there is no inconsistency between Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Article 243ZL of the Constitution. The third proviso to Article 243ZL(1) makes the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, including Section 36AAA, applicable to cooperative societies carrying on the business of banking. The court found that the requirement of consultation with the Central Government under the proviso to Section 36AAA(1) applies only to Uni-State Cooperative Banks and not to Multi-State Cooperative Banks like the respondent bank. The court concluded that the principles of natural justice cannot be read into Section 36AAA, as the statute either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any or all principles of natural justice. Providing a hearing would also have the effect of paralyzing the administrative process under Section 36AAA.In summary, the court upheld the validity of the impugned order passed by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, superseding the board of the respondent Multi-State Cooperative Bank.
Calcutta High Court
Case Name: CRR/901/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Parties: MASRUR ALAM vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a police investigation, and instead directed the petitioner to proceed with a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that the proper forum for the petitioner's grievances was the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act, and not the criminal courts. The court found that the petitioner's complaint against the bank officials was primarily about their official duties under the SARFAESI Act, and did not require a police investigation at this stage.
Case Name: CRR/3639/2017
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Parties: P. K. SARASWAT & ANOTHER vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANOTHER
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta upheld the trial court's decision to condone the 122-day delay by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in filing an appeal against the acquittal of the petitioners. The High Court found the reasons for the delay, which involved multiple levels of official procedures and approvals within the CBI, to be satisfactory. The High Court held that the court should adopt a liberal approach in condonation of delay, especially where the delay is not inordinate, rather than a hyper-technical approach, in order to ensure substantial justice. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitioners' revision application and affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the CBI's appeal against the acquittal.
Case Name: CRR/4070/2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Parties: JANNABI JOARDER @ JANHABI JOARDER & ORS. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta, held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the dispute was primarily a civil/family property dispute, without any prima facie evidence of criminal acts or intent on the part of the petitioners. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents on the scope of the High Court's power under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings when a civil dispute is given the color of a criminal offense, the court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.