This present Judgment was forwarded by this Hon’ble SC in the Civil Appeal case of Iqbal Basith & Others V. N. Subbalakshmi & Others, [C.A. No. 1725 of 2010], chaired by Hon’ble justice Mr. R.F. Nariman, Mr. Navin Sinha and Mr. Krishna Murari.

The plaintiffs are in appeal against the concurrent findings by two courts, rejecting their plaint seeking the relief for permanent injunction. The suit was initially dismissed. R.F.A. No.116/1990 preferred by the appellants was allowed by the High Court. The order was set aside by this court in C.A. No. 2072/2000 on 22.07.2004 and the matter was remanded to the High Court. Both the Courts held that the respondents had no concern with the suit property, yet ventured to decide that the appellants had failed to establish title and dismissed the suit. The conclusion of the High Court that the identity of the suit property had not been established is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.

The present suit was instituted by the appellants in 1974 seeking permanent injunction as the respondents attempted to encroach on their property. The suit schedule property was described as no. 44/6.

After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the Hon’ble HC observed that, “The conclusion by the courts below that the appellants had failed to establish title and therefore could not be said to be in lawful possession is therefore held to be perverse and unsustainable. Similarly, the conclusion that the identity of the suit property was not established is also held to be perverse in view of letter dated 16.04.1956 from the municipality, referred to herein above. The contention of the respondents feebly seeking to question the title of the appellants was rejected holding that they had nothing to do with the suit schedule property and that their conduct was questionable. Yet the appellants were wrongly denied the relief of permanent injunction. In our considered opinion the Trial Court and the High Court both posed unto themselves the wrong question venturing to decide the title of the appellants, and arrived at an erroneous conclusion.”

In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present case held that, “On basis of the aforesaid discussion, the materials and evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dismissing the suit and the appeal are therefore not sustainable. We therefore set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court dismissing the suit, and allow the appeal.”

Click here to read more

The Kerala High Court noticed that there have been many instances where the court records and documents have been missing and hence in light of these events the High Court has issued an ‘Office Memorandum’ laying down the procedure for the subordinate courts in case of missing records. The memorandum was laid down by the Kerala High Court in the case of V.Safarullah V. Gracy Josephine Lambie, OP (C) No. 1428 of 2020.

The brief facts of this case are that the Petitioners are willing to construct a building on a property that they own. The Petitioners approached the Bank for financial assistance and the Bank authorities have demanded the ‘Will’ made with respect to the property. The property originally belonged to one Andrew Rodger Lambie. By an unregistered will he bequeathed the property in favour of his wife that is the Respondent in this case. The Respondent filed for an order of protection before the court seeking letter of administration along with the Will. Later the Respondent sold this property to the Petitioner and now the property is vested with the Petitioner and his siblings. As the Petitioners approached the District Court to issue the ‘Will’, it was stated by the court that the ‘Will’ has been misplaced while in the custody of the court. Hence, in light of  the numerous cases of records and documents being misplaced by the Courts an Office Memorandum was issued which laid down directions as follows –

1. The judicial officer shall ensure that case records are properly maintained in their courts. Action should be taken if there is a lack of space to keep the files etc.
2. The subordinate court shall promptly report the missing record to the HC and failure to do so would invite serious consequences.
3. Before reporting such missing, a thorough search should be conducted and should not be done in a casual manner as there have been instances in the past whereby after an order was issued by HC to relook, the record was found. The judicial officers shall bear in mind that the missing records are to be necessarily traced out and reconstruction of those records shall be resorted to only as of the last resort
4. When the records are irrecoverably lost then it must be reported to HC stating all the steps that were taken to find them and possibilities of reconstruction. The Courts shall secure the copies of such documents at the stage of reporting the matter to the High Court and to Inform the same so that they can proceed with the matter as and when instructions are received from the High Court
5. The subordinate court shall include all necessary details of the missing documents and the case while reporting the matter to the High Court
6. Disciplinary proceedings should take place against the delinquent employee in a time-bound manner and the conclusion should be sent to HC
7. The judicial officer shall issue necessary directions to the employees to ensure that instances of missing records are not repeated.

Violation of any of the directions, the HC stated, would be taken seriously.

The High Court instructed the Subordinate Court to carry out the necessary instructions and pass appropriate orders in this case.

[Please Click here to view the Judgment]

“…for cancellation of the previous tender process, they are to go for fresh tender process for supply and commissioning of same objects, it will be abided by such commitments.”, this remarkable stand was forwarded by Odisha HC in the writ appeal case of ASCENOER Lift & Automation Private Ltd v. State of Odisha & another, [W.P.(C) No.16174 of 2019], chaired by Hon’ble chief justice Mr. Mohammad Rafiq & Hon’ble Justice Mr. Biswanath Rath of  Odisha HC, the bench in this present case disposed the instant writ appeal, with no further order as to cost.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 19.08.2019 in cancellation of the tender call notice vide Annexure-4.

Short background involved in this case is that petitioner being a private company is incorporated under the Companies Act and represented through its Chairman. The O.P.2-the Chief Engineer, Orissa State Housing Board floated the tender call notice at a cost of Rs.1,26,50,000/- for work and supply with installation / testing and commissioning of 8nos. of 6 passenger lift and one number of 8 passenger lift including supply and installation of Servo Stabilizer and Comprehensive Annual Maintenance (CMC) for two years excluding the OEM provided warranty period of lift for the work of multistoried residential apartment (LIG Block) Phase-VII at Dumduma, Bhubaneswar. In the tender call notice eligible criteria of the bidders has been specifically stated in clause-2 and prior to participation in the tender the bidders were advised to verify the spot. Copy of the tender call notice is at Annexure-1. Meeting with the eligible criteria petitioner submitted all required documents before the O.P.2. It is stated that the Tender Committee accepted the proposal submitted by the petitioner. There were 8 agencies who had applied pursuant to the tender call notice and the Tender Committee rejected the proposals of Omega Elevator, Kumar Elevator and M/s. Bharat Elevator as they are not technically qualified on the basis of insufficient experience, but however, selected M/s. Arohi Elevator, M/s. LT Elevator and the petitioner as they were qualified technically and after these parties technically qualified the Tender Committee considered the financial bid. In the financial bid petitioner as well as one Arohi Elevator Private Ltd. quoted their percentage i.e. 14.99 and both of them were selected as L-1. As there were two parties standing at L-1, the Tender Committee entered into a lottery process between Arohi Elevator 3 and the petitioner and in the process, petitioner became the successful bidder. Pleadings made in this Writ Petition further discloses that in spite of depositing of a sum of Rs.1,26,500/- towards EMD by the petitioner, the O.P.2 did not issue the work order in favour of the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner came to know that the O.P.2 has cancelled the tender notice vide its order dated 19.08.2019 without assigning any reason and also without even communicating the same to the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner could only get the information about cancellation of the tender notice through the Notice Board of the party concerned.

After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the Hon’ble HC observed that, “there is no illegality or impropriety on the part of the O.P.2 in cancelling the earlier tender. It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court also records its expectation that for the disclosure in the counter affidavit at the instance of O.P.2 more particularly through paragraph nos.3 & 6 therein that in cancellation of the previous tender process they are to go for fresh tender process for supply and commissioning of same objects, it will be abided by such commitments.”

The bench further added that, “Before parting with the judgment in upholding the decision of the authority in cancellation of the tender call notice vide Annexure-4, this Court keeping in view that there is some deposit at the instance of petitioner lying with the O.P.2, directs, such deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest @7% per annum although within a period of seven days from the date of communication of a copy of this judgment by either of the parties. This Court here clarifies that for withdrawal of the Annexure-A during pendency of the Writ Petition the interim direction dated 25.11.2019 rendered infractuous and the Opposite Parties will be at liberty to go ahead with their decision on fresh tender.”

In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present case dismissed the writ with no order as to cost.

Click here to read more

“Coming to the charge under section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, it requires commission of lurking house-trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment”, this remarkable stand was forwarded by Odisha HC in case of Satrughana Nag v. State of Odisha, [CRA NO. 128 Of 1990], chaired by Hon’ble Hon’ble Justice Mr. S.K. Sahoo of Odisha HC.

The appellant Satrughana Nag faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No.62/22 of 1989 for offences punishable under sections 376/ 511, 354 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.1990, found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under section 376/511 of Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under section 457 of Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

This appeal was preferred on 04.05.1990 and the appellant was directed to be released on bail as per order dated 25.05.1990. When the matter was called for hearing on 05.11.2020, learned counsel for the appellant was not present and since it is an appeal of the year 1990, Mr. Rajjeet Roy, learned counsel was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court for the appellant.

After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the Hon’ble HC observed that, “The mere fact that a house-trespass is committed by night does not make the offence one of lurking house-trespass. There is no evidence that the appellant had taken precautions to conceal the house-trespass. As it seems, he had come inside the house of the victim wearing lungi and gamuchha. There is also no evidence that any housebreaking as defined under section 445 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by the appellant.”

The bench further added that, “However, there are enough materials to make out an offence of house- trespass as defined under section 442 of the Indian Penal Code which is punishable under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if no specific charge is framed under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code but since charge was framed under higher offence like section 457 of the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the appellant in convicting him under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under section 457 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside, instead he is found guilty under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.”

In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the single judge bench in this present case held that, “In the result, conviction of the appellant under sections 376/511, 354 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside, instead the appellant is convicted under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. The criminal appeal is allowed in part.”

Click here to read more

When the Statutes have not prescribed any conditions for affiliation but have left it to the Syndicate to take care of matters relating to affiliation, the function of the Syndicate to lay down norms and standards by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 30(2), is made free of any fetters. This judgment was delivered by three judge bench comprising hon’ble Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian at Supreme Court in the matter APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University & anr. v. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology & Ors. [ C.A. No. 4016 of 2020].  

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to   reconsider   the   application   for   affiliation   of   a   new   B.Tech course,   submitted  by   the   first   respondent,   which   is   a   self-financing Engineering College, solely on the basis of the extension of   approval  granted   by   the   All   India   Council   for   Technical Education  (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “AICTE”),   the   APJ   Abdul Kalam Technological University, which is a State University and its Vice Chancellor have come up with this appeal. The writ petition filed by the first respondent challenging the   denial   of   affiliation   for   starting   a   new   B.Tech   course   in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, was taken up along with similar writ petitions filed by other colleges (including those filed by the Colleges, which have now come up with applications for intervention/impleadment and for vacation of interim order) and all of them were disposed of by a learned Judge of the High Court by a Judgment dated 06.08.2020.

Not   satisfied   with   the   partial   relief   granted   and   the directions issued by the learned Judge, the first respondent filed a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No.1073 of 2020 before the Division Bench   of   the   High   Court.   The   other   Colleges   who   were   writ petitioners, also filed separate writ appeals. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, the University has come up with the above appeal. It is stated across the Bar that the appellant­ University has   filed   similar   appeals   against   the   very   same   impugned Judgment and those appeals are yet to be numbered. Therefore, when the colleges filed writ appeals and argued about the procedure to be followed under Section 14(6) in the absence of the Statutes, the appellant­ University relied upon the Statutes   issued   on   07.08.2020   and   the   power   of   ratification. Statute No.93 was brought to the notice of the Division Bench to show that all matters relating to affiliation fell within the scope of the powers of the Syndicate. But the Division Bench not only rejected the argument of ratification, but also rejected the reliance placed upon Statute No.93 on the ground that the power under Statute No.93 may relate only to the grant of affiliation of a teaching course or any subject in a teaching course, conducted in any of the colleges which are not affiliated.

The Hon’ble SC while deciding upon the matter stated that the norms prescribed by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 24.06.2020 under the Chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor could not have been taken exception to. After all, the norms which the Colleges have objected to, merely seek to ensure that   at   least   50%   of   the   outgoing   students   had   passed   their respective courses and that the Institution should have the most recent academic audit overall score of “Good”, apart from having an actual intake of more than 50% of the sanctioned intake in the preceding three years on an average. We fail to understand how colleges can demand affiliation for creating additional courses, when the pass percentage of outgoing students is less than 50% and the Colleges could not even have an average intake of more than 50% of the sanctioned intake in the preceding three years. Accordingly, the   appeal   is   allowed   and   the   impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The resolution passed by the   Syndicate   on   24.06.2020   in   modification   of   the   earlier resolution   dated   04.02.2020   is   upheld.   As   a   corollary, the consequential actions, if any, of the University as regards the first respondent ­College   are   also   upheld.   The   applications   for impleadment/intervention are dismissed and the other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

[Please Click here to view the Judgment]