Blog - Page 175 of 1820

30 Nov

ED Summons to District Collectors A ‘Fishing Expedition’ Without Showing Existence Of Proceeds Of Crime: Madras High Court.

Blog #HighCourt, #JUSTICE, #law, #MadrasHighCourt

ED Summons to District Collectors A ‘Fishing Expedition’ Without Showing Existence Of Proceeds Of Crime: Madras High Court.

Title : State of Tamil Nadu v Enforcement Directorate

Case No. : W.P.Nos.33459 to 33468 of 2023

Decided on : 30.11.2023.

CORAM : HONBLE JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J

Introduction

All the above writ petitions are filed by the State Government along with the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department and the District Collectors concerned. Writ Petition Nos.33459, 33460, 33461, 33462 & 33467 of 2023 are filed by the State Government and two others to quash the respective impugned summon issued to the District Collector of Vellore District, Trichy District, Karur District, Thanjavur District and Ariyalur District, requiring the appearance of the respective District Collectors to give evidence and produce records as indicated in the annexure, in connection with the investigation/proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 .

Fact of the Case

The respondent, namely, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement has filed an objection affidavit. The learned Additional Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection stating that the writ petitions are not maintainable by the State Government, as the State is not an aggrieved person to challenge the process of investigation. The learned Additional Solicitor General also relied upon a few complaints registered in different parts of the State. Referring to the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that as per the First Information Report mentioned in the ECIR, prima facie, it is observed that the activities of illegal mining are happening in the State of Tamil Nadu in collusion with officials and local mafia, hand in glove.

Case Analysis and Judgment

Court sincerely appreciates the way in which the respondent had responded to these writ petitions within a short time. A detailed affidavit of objection is filed by the respondent raising several issues. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners requested time to file reply in response to the objection in the form of affidavit. The learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that they may be permitted to file a detailed counter affidavit.

“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.”

30 Nov

Law Must Be Potent Enough to Operate Against People in Power, Having Higher Connections: Madras High Court .

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #law, #MadrasHigh, #SeekingjusticeCourt

Law Must Be Potent Enough to Operate Against People in Power, Having Higher Connections: Madras High Court .

Title : Mangalam v. The State Government and Others, WP (MD) 21450/2021

Case No. : W.P.(MD)No.21450 of 2021

Decided on :30.11.2023

CORAM :HONBLE JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

Introduction

This writ petition is filed to take action against the ninth respondent with the allegation that the ninth respondent without any valid permission, is illegally quarrying the lands belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.517/16A1, A2, A3, 603/4 and 604/2 measuring an extent of 12 acres.

Fact of the Case

It is submitted that with respect to para 2 of the Affidavit, one Thiru. Raja, the 9th Respondent herein was granted a lease for quarrying gravel in S.F.No. 617/1B and 617/2 of Punjai Sankenthi village of Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District for an extent of 1.81.5 hectares vide Proceedings of the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli in Rc.No.30/2013/Mines dated 27.06.2015 for a period of 3 years for a quantum of 35,108 cbm of Gravel. The lease was executed on 04.09.2015 and the lease is valid up to 03.09.2018. Thiru. Raja obtained Environmental Clearance from SEIAA-TN vide letter dated 01.04.2015 for a production quantity of 35,108 cbm of Gravel for a period of three years from the date of executing lease deed.

Case Analysis and Judgment

This Court is forced to make the above observations with a fond hope that the District Collector, Trichy District will immediately initiate action for the illegal quarrying done by the 9th respondent. Similarly, the District Crime Branch Unit-II, Trichy shall immediately register the FIR and proceed further with the investigation. The progress made shall be informed to this Court during the next date of hearing.

30 Nov

The Kerala High Court held that cheque dishonour directors not held vicariously liable if company found not guilty of crime under NI Act

Prime Legal

Blog #dishonourofcheque, #keralahighcourt, #negotiableinstrumentact

Title: Afsal Hussain v. K.S. Muhammed Ismail & Anr.
Decided on: 14 November, 2023

+ CRL.REV.PET NO. 1060 OF 2008

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Sophy Thomas

Introduction

The Kerala High Court ruled that, in cases where the company is not proved to have committed the offense, the directors of the company cannot be found guilty of a crime under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), which is known as “Dishonour of Cheque.”

Facts of the Case

In the current case, the Managing Director of Omnitech Information Systems Pvt. Ltd., the revision-petitioner, was sued by the first respondent for dishonouring a Rs. 10 lakh cheque that the latter had sent to the former. In the complaint, the Company was listed as the first accused, the Managing Director/revision-petitioner as the second accused, and the other Directors as the other accused parties. According to Section 138 of the NI Act, the trial court found all of the accused guilty. The first accused firm was fined, and the other accused directors—including the revision petitioner—were sentenced to simple imprisonment and a fine. The Appellate Court only maintained the conviction of the revision-petitioner, even though his substantive sentence was lowered, while clearing the other respondents—including the firm.

Courts analysis and decision

The revision-petitioner issued the check in his capacity as the company’s managing director, the court stated. It was determined that the Managing Director could not be held accountable for any offenses committed by the Company after the appellate court cleared the company of all charges. As a result, it overturned the contested ruling and cleared the revisionist of any wrongdoing.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view you judgement

30 Nov

The Kerala High Court says that BS-IV and BS-VI vehicle pollution certificates are valid for one year.

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt, #pollution, #vehicle

Title: S. Sadananda Naik v. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors.
Decided on: 21 November, 2023

+ W.P. (C) No. 30776/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh

Introduction

A government order (“GO”) issued by the Kerala State Government that established a uniform period of validity for Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificates for all vehicle categories—regardless of whether they were produced in accordance with BS-VI (Bharat Stage Emission Standards-VI) or BS-IV (Bharat Stage Emission Standards-IV) standards—has been overturned by the Kerala High Court.

Facts of the Case

The State Government of Kerala issued the notification G.O.(Rt)No. 353/2022/ TRANS on August 22, 2022, which specifies the validity period and cost for Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificates for a variety of vehicle categories, including two- and three-wheelers. This notice is being challenged in the current writ petition.

Courts analysis and decision

According to the requirement, the PUC Certificate’s validity may not exceed a year for cars built in accordance with BS-IV or BS-VI standards. In light of this, the court invalidated the challenged order/notification to the degree that it specified a consistent 6-month PUC Certificate validity duration for vehicles classified as BS-IV and BS-VI.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

30 Nov

Authorities Directed To Resolve The Grievance Regarding The Bid: Patna High Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #Cases, #law, #Legal News, #Legal Report, #Patna HC

Citation: CWJC No.5556 of 2023

Decided On: 01-11-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri And Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Introduction:

In the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

To issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the result of the bid held on 10.03.2023 at 11:00 A.M. 11.50 A.M. (Annexure-3) for settlement of parking stand of scootere/motorcycle, car/other four wheelers, auto (vikaram), auto (bajaj) at south side karbigahiya of Patna Junction Railway Station for 3 years in favour of M/s Maruti Foundation.
To quash and cancel all other action or actions, order or orders agreement if any executed in favour of Respondent in continuation or in relation to the aforementioned settlement being arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

Petitioner and eight respondents alongwith others participated in bid for settlement of parking stand of Scooter/Motorcycle, Car/other four wheelers, auto (Vikaram), auto (Bajaj) at south side Karbigahiya of Patna Junction Railway Station for a period of three years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an arbitrary decisions on behalf of the respondents in so far as the acceptance of bid with reference to the timing on 10.03.2023. Prima facie, it is too technical and the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. The concerned authority/competent authority has failed to take any decision either accepting or rejecting the petitioner’s claim.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

It is also submitted that in not awarding contract to the petitioner with reference to his bid, the respondent railway authorities have already put themselves into loss. These are all the materials information which is required to be taken note of by the competent authority before deciding the petitioner’s grievance dated 13.03.2023 and 20.03.2023.

The concerned authorities is directed to pass a detailed speaking order on the grievance of the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month. With that direction the writ is disposed by the court.

Written By : Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

1 … 173 174 175 176 177 … 1,820