There was no explanation as to why the petition was filed so belatedly and that the evidence of the proposed witness was necessary for a just decision of the case and the prosecution had deliberately not cited him as a witness. The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sashikanta Mishra held such an opinion in the matter of Pradeep Santi Vs. State of Odisha (Vigilance) [CRLMC No. 1571 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were associated with an application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought to quash the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar dated 03.09.2021 because his prayer to summon a witness was rejected. The petitioner was an accused. The petitioner filed a petition after the closure of the evidence from the prosecution and defence. The said petition was rejected vide order dated 03.09.2021, which was later impugned in the present application. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition under Section 311 was rejected by the court below without application for absurd reasons. Furthermore, the counsel stated that the witness was not cited in the charge sheet and that the witness was vital for defence. 

The Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the law permits the court to summon any person as a witness at any stage of the proceeding so as to arrive at a just decision in the case but the rejection of the same was unjust. The Counsel for the opposition stated that the petitioner had filed the petition after the long closure of the evidence and also stated that it was a tactic by the petitioner to delay the conclusion of the trial. 

The Hon’ble Court opined that no plausible explanation was presented regarding the delay in filing the petition. After much considerations, The Hon’ble Court held that “All the above factors thus cumulatively persuade this court to hold that there is no compelling necessity to summon the proposed witness to adduce evidence in the case at this belated stage. As such, this court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere therewith.”

Therefore, the said case was dismissed.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

Section 16(2) mandates that the Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the CPC as amended by the Act in the trial of a suit in respect of the commercial dispute. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim before The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan in the matter of M/s Thomas Enterprises and Ors Vs. M/s Yuksom Breweries Limited [R.F.A. No. 04 of 2018].

The facts of the case were associated with an application filed against the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi dated 30.07.2018. The matter was found to be a commercial dispute and ought to be tried as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. According to both the counsel the impugned judgment and decree should be set aside and the Money Suit to the Commercial Court. The respondent sought a decree against the appellants for a sum of Rs.1,29,00,728/- along with interest @ 12% per annum on and from 01.04.2014 till realization in the Money Suit filed.  

It was stated that a suit that did not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation. A settlement arrived at is required to be reduced into writing and signed by the parties and the mediator. The settlement had the same status as an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the Money Suit was not dealt with in the manner required under the Act. The Hon’ble Court opined that the failure of the learned District Judge to scrutinise and transfer the Money Suit to the Commercial Court had led to defeat the very object of the enactment of the Act to provide for speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes.

 The Hon’ble Court considering all the facts stated that “We are thus of the considered view that the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018 passed by the learned District Judge in the Money Suit must be set aside and the Money Suit transferred to the files of the Commercial Court. The Money Suit shall then be tried by the Commercial Court as per the provisions of the Act. It is accordingly ordered. Pending application is also disposed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

The petition was filed because there was a disconnection of electricity connection to his property by the other party and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, in the matter GOLAK GIRI  V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR dealt with an issue mentioned above.

Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to grant electricity connection for the second floor of property bearing No. T-235/12/1A, SF, which is located in Delhi, Counter affidavit was been filed by the respondent stating that there is a title dispute between the petitioner and one Sh. Krishan W.P. (C) 6720/2021 Gopal has registered an FIR against the petitioner and further it is contended that there appears to be civil litigation pending between the two.

Learned counsel submits that there were five cases of theft of electricity that have been registered against the petitioner and theft bills have also been raised which are still outstanding and unless and until the petitioner clears the outstanding theft bills, no electricity connection can be granted to the petitioner was mentioned.

Later Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the recorded owner of the subject property and Sh. Krishan Gopal has alleged that there is an agreement to sell in his favour and the civil dispute is pending. He further undertakes that the petitioner shall clear the theft bills raised by the respondent and shall also comply with all financial and other formalities required for the grant of an electricity connection.

Petitioner was placed, on record, the documents executed by DDA in favour of the petitioner concerning the subject property which establishes that petitioner is the owner of the subject property and is accordingly entitled to grant of an electricity connection, and also the undertaking which was given by the Petitioner that he shall clear all of W.P. (C) 6720/2021 the theft bills raised by the respondent was accepted.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “Because of the above, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to clear the theft bills as raised by the respondent and thereafter on clearance of the theft bills, the respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of an electricity connection. On petitioner’s completing all the requisite formalities, the electricity connection shall be granted to the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The petition is disposed of in the above terms”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment reviewed by: Mandira BS

The criminal proceeding filed by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related provisions against have nothing to do with the employment of the petitioner and therefore the order of suspension of the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 & 2 is set aside. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court before Hon’ble Justice R. D. DHANUKA and Hon’ble Justice ABHAY AHUJA in the matter of Sau Sheela Rameshchandra Bargaje vs The Administrative Officer, Municipal Education Board & anr[WRIT PETITION NO. 12817 OF 2017].

The fact of the case was that the petitioner was suspended from his post as a teacher in regard to a criminal proceeding under section 498A set forth by her daughter-in-law. No internal enquiry or departmental enquiry was initiated by the respondents were initiated against the petitioner but she remained suspended till she retired by superannuation. It was the contention of the petitioner that the suspension order was ultra-vires and should be set aside and all the dues should be paid to her.

The Hon’ble High Court held that if a criminal proceeding would have been filed and the same is pending then the suspension would have been valid but in the current case, the criminal proceeding pending is in regard to section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 which is in no matter related to the employment of the petitioner. 

Further, the Hon’ble High Court referred to the judgment held in the case of Shrikant Ramchandra Inamdar v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr[Writ Petition No. 3601 of 2018] in which it was held that “the petitioner therein had already retired however his gratuity dues were held up in view of the pending criminal proceedings in a property dispute with his family members, this Court accordingly held that those were not the proceedings relating to the service of the petitioner with the respondent-corporation. Therefore, the said Rule 45A(c) would not apply to the case of the petitioner”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of suspension and directed the respondent no 1 & 3 to clear up all the arrears of service within 3 weeks.

Click here to read the judgment.

Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur