Blog - Prime Legal

29 Apr

“Supreme Court’s Ruling on Continuation of Trial Proceedings and Evidence Examination.”

Prime Legal

Blog # proceedings, #evidence, #sc

Case Title: THE STATE OF ODISHA VERSUS NIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY & ANR.

Case No: Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No.5758 OF 2018

Decided on: 26th April, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH

Facts of the case

Charges under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code are the result of a conspiracy involving the misappropriation of a general power of attorney (GPA) and property transactions . In order to fully ascertain the facts and evaluate the nature and scope of the alleged conspiracy, a comprehensive trial procedure is necessary, and the Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was ruled inadequate . It was brought to light that the respondents had manipulated papers such as Hata Patas and rent receipts in order to illegally transfer government land, which made a thorough investigation in a trial setting necessary . In order to learn the truth about the fraudulent schemes, the Court underlined how crucial it is to let the trial against the respondents continue .

Appellant Contentions

The State argues, citing the respondents’ professional real estate knowledge and the questionable character of the transactions, that the Court disregarded circumstantial evidence suggesting a larger conspiracy including the respondents . Furthermore, the State contended that the High Court had not sufficiently recognized the gravity of the violations and their consequences for public faith in land record administration and governance . The Court determined that the Court’s decision to halt the proceedings was founded on an insufficient analysis of the evidence, requiring a thorough trial procedure to fully expose the purported conspiracy.

Respondent Contentions

A strong prima facie case for additional investigation has been formed by the respondents, especially Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was discovered that they were crucial to the abuse of the General Power of Attorney (GPA) and the ensuing property transactions . In order to enable and hide the fraudulent schemes involving government property, Respondent No. 1, the wife of Respondent No. 2, played a key role in the planning and execution of these transactions . They did this by taking use of their professional positions and industry influence. A thorough trial procedure is necessary to determine the truth about the purported conspiracy, as the Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was criticized for being founded on an inadequate analysis of the facts .

Court Analysis and Judgement

The Court’s decision to halt the proceedings was overturned by the Supreme Court, which also ordered that the trial against the respondents proceed in compliance with the law .The alleged conspiracy, the respondents’ involvement, and the harm to the public coffers all of which can only be ascertained by the Trial Court through a comprehensive review of the evidence and witnesses must be carefully examined during the trial process, the Court stressed .

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

29 Apr

Res Judicata Principles in Writ Petitions: Upholding Court Rulings and Evidence

Prime Legal

Blog #res judicata, #sc, EVM

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS VERSUS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Case No: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 434 OF 2023

Decided on: 26th April, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

Facts of the case

When the relief sought in a current petition is the identical as that sought in a prior petition that the Court dismissed, the law of res judicata applies to writ petitions, rendering the Court’s decision final . The facts center on the question of accountability and openness in Indian elections. The Election Commission of India was challenged by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) over the publication of candidates’ financial details, criminal histories, and educational backgrounds. In order for voters to make educated judgments during elections, ADR claimed that they have a right to know these data. The case brings up significant issues regarding how to strike a balance between candidates’ right to privacy and the openness required for a democratic election process. The revelation of candidates’ criminal histories, bank account details, and educational backgrounds was the primary concern. In order for voters to make educated decisions during elections, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) thought that this information should be available to them. This issue brings to light the conflict between the right to privacy of candidates and the need for openness in a democratic election process.

Appellant Contentions

The materials talk about the difficulties with the electoral process and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Rather than going back to the paper ballot system, they emphasize the necessity for technological developments, openness, and faith in the system. The petitioners’ arguments are carefully considered, with a focus on the need for proof to support assertions and the court’s duty in maintaining free and fair elections. The papers also discuss the res judicata principles, which prohibit litigation of settled matters, particularly in circumstances of significant public interest when proof of permanent injury is essential.

Respondent Contentions

In response to the respondent’s argument, the documents highlight the growing voting percentage over time, which indicates faith in the current system and highlights the trust that voters have in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The petitioners’ claim that they have a right to information about the voting process is examined, emphasizing how crucial it is to precisely record and tally votes a goal that the existing voting system, which uses EVMs and VVPAT slips, attempts to accomplish.

Court Analysis and Judgement

In discussing the application of res judicata principles to writ petitions, the judgment emphasizes how court rulings are binding under Article 226 unless they are overturned on appeal. It makes clear that the plea of res judicata based on the Court’s final decision is unaffected by the dismissal of a special leave petition. The paper also discusses the necessity of a fair, evidence-based approach to system review and development and the requirement for sufficient evidence to contest the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to read the judgement

29 Apr

Limitation is an inherent aspect of the arbitrable point, observes Karnataka High Court in a construction case

Prime Legal

Blog #arbitration, #Karnataka High Court, construction, limitation act

Case Name: Shivaraj Kamshetty v. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors

Case No.: CIVIL MISC PETITION NO.200003 OF 2022

Dated: April 19,2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice C. M. Joshi

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, a petition has been submitted in order to appoint an arbitrator to mediate the disagreement that has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents. The responders had requested proposals for the work of building a building at Kalaburagi, and the petitioner claims he is a reputable Class-I Contractor with over 35 years of expertise.

On August 22, 2011, the petitioner and the respondents entered into an agreement after the petitioner’s bid was accepted by the respondents. A sum of Rs. 109.00 lakhs was agreed upon to be paid for the completion of the work. In accordance with the specifications and drawings provided in the agreement, the petitioner successfully finished the contracted task.

The respondents granted approval on March 25, 2014, for the petitioner to finish the excess work that was assigned to him. The total amount of work completed was Rs. 1,22,16,239/-as a result of additional work that was also approved by the responders on May 7, 2015. The respondents had a delay in responding to the final bill, which was submitted to them on September 28, 2015, as a result of their approval of the additional work.

On March 25, 2014, the respondents gave the petitioner permission to complete the extra work that had been given to him. Because of additional work that was also allowed by the respondents on May 7, 2015, the total amount of work accomplished was Rs. 1,22,16,239/-. Due to their acceptance of the additional work, the responders took longer than expected to respond to the final bill, which was delivered to them on September 28, 2015.

The petitioner had corresponded with the respondents on multiple occasions between 2011 and 2017, disputing various points, including the computation of the dues and the 10% margin of profit. In the end, the petitioner served a legal notice on May 16, 2020, demanding payment of Rs. 2,53,22,934/-, to which the respondents replied on June 16, 2020.

The petitioner requested that the respondents designate a single arbitrator in accordance with Clause 4 of the Special Conditions of Contract Read With Clause 24 of the General Conditions of Contract. Since the respondents refused to agree to the arbitrator’s appointment, the petitioner was forced to file an application with this court pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

The petitioners’ counsel argued that Shivaraj Kamshetty was aboard a bus from Mangaluru to Udupi on December 27, 2009. Shivaraj’s bus was involved in a collision with another bus (registration number KA-01-F-8534) that was driven carelessly and rashly close to Pavanje village. Shivaraj suffered severe injuries as a result, and A.J. Hospital admitted him.

The petitioner argues that the respondents had requested bids for the construction of a building at Kalaburagi, and he is a reputable Class-I Contractor with over 35 years of experience.

In addition, the petitioner claims to be a businessman who makes Rs. 90,000 a month and that the accident prevented him from making money from his venture. He has also filed a claim suit under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, requesting payment to the owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle in the amount of Rs. 40,000,000.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

Speaking on behalf of the respondents, the learned attorney argued that the arbitration proceedings were unenforceable due to the petitioner’s claim being time-barred. He argues that even after the respondents had taken into account all of the petitioner’s arguments, the petitioner had made false accusations against them. As a result, the petition had no validity and could be rejected.

It was contended by the respondents that the arbitrator has authority over the limiting question. The argument put forth was that the arbitrator ought to determine whether the claims are precluded by limitation.

The ruling in a high court decision, which determined that the question of limitation is a combination of factual and legal inquiry, was cited by the respondents. As such, the arbitral tribunal ought to make that decision. Respondents stressed that Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act) permits the court to reject arbitration only in cases where the claims are clearly barred by statute of limitations.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 100 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. Subject to the restrictions imposed by this Act or any other enactment, the Board will function as a body corporate with perpetual succession, a common seal, and the ability to sue or be sued in its corporate name. It will also be able to acquire, hold, and dispose of moveable and immovable property, enter into contracts, and carry out any other necessary, appropriate, or expedient actions for the purposes for which it was established.
Sections 111 & 112 of the K.A.P.M (R&D) Act, 1966. The major responsibilities of the Board are listed in these sections. Educating people about controlled marketing, supporting market committees that are struggling financially, encouraging the grading and standardisation of agricultural products, and enhancing infrastructure for the transportation and sale of agricultural products are a few of these duties.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court determined that, in light of Clause-24 of the General Conditions of Contract, an arbitrator must be appointed to hear the disagreement that has arisen between the parties under these circumstances.

In response to a request from this Court, all parties have agreed that Smt. Premavathi M. Manogoli, District Judge (Retd.), Plot No. 56, Teachers Colony, Near Jhanayogashram, Vijayapura, should be appointed as the only arbiter.

The court held that the petition was allowed. The court noted that although the respondents contested the arbitration clause due to the claim’s limitation, they did not contest the existence of the arbitration agreement. According to this ruling, the arbitrator has the authority to decide the limitation problem since it is an integral part of the arbitrable point.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the question of limitation is a mixed factual and legal matter that must be decided by an arbitral panel. The court relied on this ruling; The court also made it clear that Section 11 of the A&C Act permits it to reject arbitration only in cases where the claims are fundamentally precluded by statute.

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora

Click to view judgment.

29 Apr

Political parties’ manifestoes do not constitute corrupt practices under Section 123, says Karnataka High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #congress, #Karnataka High Court, #Political Parties, INC, Manifesto, S.123

Case Name: Sri Shahanka J Sreedhara v. Sri B.Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan

Case No.: EP No. 15 of 2023

Dated: April 25, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice M.I. Arun

FACTS OF THE CASE:

According to the case’s facts, the petitioner, a voter in the Chamarajpet Assembly Constituency, has contested the choice of that constituency’s victorious candidate for the Karnataka State Legislature in 2023.

As per the case circumstances, the petitioner, who is a voter in the Chamarajpet Assembly Constituency, has challenged the selection of the winning candidate for the Karnataka State Legislature in 2023 from within that constituency.

Shashanka J Sreedhara, a voter from the Chamrajpet Assembly Constituency, filed the election petition. In the Karnataka State Legislature elections of 2023, he objected to the choice of B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan, the victorious candidate, who was standing in the same constituency.

The basis for the challenge in the current election petition is that the five guarantees made by the Indian National Congress (INC) party in its manifesto—namely, (i) “Gruha Jyothi”—200 units of free electricity to every house; (ii) “Gruha Lakshmi”—Rs. 2,000/-per month to every woman head of the family; (iii) “Anna Bhagya”—10 kilogrammes of food grain per person in a BPL family per month; (iv) “Yuva Nidhi”—Rs. 3000/-per month for two years to unemployed graduates and Rs. 1,500/-per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders; (v) “Shakthi”—free travel to all women throughout the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC buses—amount to corrupt practices and for that reason

The petitioners’ primary argument was that the promises stated in the party’s platform, the Indian National Congress (INC), amounted to unethical behaviour. They attempted to overturn the respondent’s election as the INC’s victorious candidate.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
The primary argument put out by the petitioners was that the promises stated in the party’s manifesto, the Indian National Congress (INC), amounted to illegal activity. As the respondent was an INC candidate who won, they attempted to nullify the election of the respondent.

The petitioners’ main point of contention was that the promises made by the Indian National Congress (INC) in its platform amounted to unlawful conduct. Since the respondent was an INC candidate who emerged victorious, they endeavoured to void the respondent’s election.

First and foremost, the petitioners contended that the promises made by the Indian National Congress (INC) in its platform amounted to unlawful action. They made an effort to overturn the respondent’s election because they were an INC candidate who was elected.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The respondent argued that the petitioner had neither named the respondent candidate or levelled any specific accusations of corrupt behaviour. Instead, the Indian National Congress (INC) party’s manifesto was the centre of attention.

The reply contended that the INC’s manifesto promises are a matter of policy and are not to be classified as corrupt practices. As stated by the reply, the manifesto’s pledges were a component of social welfare measures; their financial feasibility is a different story.

The respondents said that the petitioner acknowledged during the arguments that the respondent had not been personally accused of engaging in any corrupt activities. But according to the petitioner, the INC’s manifesto was questionable, and its promised programmes would bankrupt the State Treasury and could not be put into action.

In response, the respondent said that it is the responsibility of other parties to show how the execution of these plans would affect the public treasury. Essentially, the respondent stressed that Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act does not apply to political party policy announcements, even if they contain promises or guarantees, because they are not considered corrupt acts. In the end, the court supported this position, acknowledging the significance of voters making educated choices.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act. Under “bribery,” any present, offer, or promise made to any individual with the intention of directly or indirectly encouraging gratification from a candidate, his agent, or any other person with the approval of the candidate or his election agent, to any person whatsoever, is considered to be the decision of a candidate to run in an election, whether to run or not, and whether to withdraw.

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). In accordance with this rule, the respondent submitted a request to have the election petition dismissed. Based on this rule, the respondent’s opposition to the petition was taken into consideration by the court.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

According to the court, a party’s announcement about the policies they plan to put into place cannot be regarded as corrupt behaviour under Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act.

The court highlighted that voters should discuss whether or not the promises made by the INC party in its manifesto are reasonable and whether they have the impact of giving out freebies or placating a particular segment of society. Under the RP Act, the same cannot be regarded as a corrupt activity.

Regarding specific corrupt activities, the petitioner did not level any personal accusations against the respondent candidate. Rather, the promises made in the manifesto were the main focus.

The promises made in the INC manifesto were viewed by the court as social welfare measures. It is up to others to explain how the execution of these plans will affect the state treasury, even though their financial sustainability is a different matter. As per Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, the court acknowledged that policy pronouncements made by political parties are not equivalent to corrupt acts, even if they contain promises or guarantees. The statement underscored the significance of informed voter decision-making in assessing policy pronouncements of this nature.

In conclusion, the court recognised that knowledge is crucial when it comes to voters making decisions and that political parties’ policy statements shouldn’t be mistaken for corrupt activities under the RP Act.

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora

Click to view judgment.

29 Apr

Allegations of Illegal Eviction Remain Unresolved: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #eviction, #judgement, #law, #LEGAL, #primelegal, illegal eviction, license

Case title: Sanjay Maruti Jadhav v. Amit Tatoba Sawant

Case no: Civil appeal No. 72 of 2012

Dated on: April 26,2024

Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath.

Facts of the case:
A Leave and License Agreement was entered between the Appellants and the Respondent. The Appellants are the owners of the property, which was the subject matter of the Suit. The Respondent herein had filed Suit against the Appellant for illegal and unauthorized eviction from the Suit Schedule property which was decreed by the Trial Court and further concurred by the High Court as well. Appellant, aggrieved by the Orders of the High Court, preferred Civil Appeal wherein the Supreme Court had reserved the matter for orders on 18.01.2024. The Supreme Court, left it open for the parties to move appropriate application within a period of two weeks, in case there is any probability for settlement. However, as three months elapsed and since no such application was filed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
Contentions of the appellant:
The Appellants contended that the Suit under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act not being maintainable. The subject property was handed over voluntarily by the Respondent and to prove the said contention the Appellant relied on the Possession Receipt.
Contentions of the respondent:
The Respondent filed a suit, within six months of dispossession, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1961 by alleging that they were illegally and unauthorizedly by use of force, evicted by the Appellant.
Issues:
Whether any merit is there in the Appeal preferred and whether any interference is required?
Legal Provisions:
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act: Suit by person disposed of immovable property.
Courts judgement and analysis:
The Trial Court decreed the suit of the Respondent disbelieving the contentions of the Appellants that the subject property was handed over voluntarily by the Respondent thereby not talking into consideration the possession receipt relied upon by the Appellant. The Trial Court rejected the appellant’s plea of non-maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Appellant, aggrieved by the decision preferred a Revision Petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court also found that the plea of maintainability of the suit raised by the appellant was devoid of merits and further concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the Respondent was illegally dispossessed by the Respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed as there are concurrent findings, based upon the evidence on record and findings of fact.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement

1 2 3 … 1,820