The Punjab High Court on 13th April, 2023, in Gaurav Sangwan v/s State of Haryana and others (LPA-285-2023 (O&M), held that indulgence of writ cannot be sought on the basis of a casual attitude. The judgement was presided by Honourable Mr, Justice Ravi Shankar Jha and Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Palli.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Haryana Staff Selection Commission had invited online applications to carry out selection to 4 posts of Food Production Instructor (Theory) in the Skill Development & Industrial Training Department. the candidate had applied for the same, and successfully cleared the written praise of the examination. Upon this, the documents had to be submitted on the portal for scrutiny from 1st March, 2023 to 10th March, 2023. The Commission also issued 1st April, 2023 as the date for which the candidates who had failed/ missed to apply earlier could submit the required forms. However, the appellant t missed this particular date as well. The appellant approached the Commission later for scrutiny of documents but was denied the same on grounds of missing both the opportunities and there were similar placed candidates like the appellant.
The learned counsel for the appellant contested that the appellant had cleared the written examination but the Commission failed to inform the appellant or give any notice to upload the required documents. It was further contested that another chance must be provided by the Commission for the the selection process.

JUDGEMENT:

The Court reiterated the facts and held that the Commission’s announcement of the exams being held was announced on the website. Thereby, the candidate also filled his application form and downloaded his admit card from the said website. Post this, the website mentioned the dates and the other consequent date for uploading the documents. The court held that, “Therefore, it seems incredible that appellant, who responded to the advertisement published on the website of the Commission, submitted his application online and downloaded his admit card from the website online to appear in the written examination, would not follow up the Commission’s website to check his result and/or the notices/instructions issued by the Commission from time to time.”
Referring to section 2.3 (a) of the website, the court contested that, candidates had to regularly visit the website as no separate individual intimation would be sent. The Court held the possibility of two circumstances therein: gross negligence by the candidate, or for reason known to the candidate, he chose not to participate in the selection process. In order for the selection process to be completed in a time bound manner,every stage had certain requirements that had to be fulfilled, and the said details were available on the website. The appeal was dismissed.

“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 ARYA THAKUR.

Section 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC quashed on account of marriage of accused and victim: Punjab High Court.

The Punjab High Court, on 13th April 2023, in Chandan Paswan v/s State of Punjab and Another, (CRM-M-12854-2021), held that married life of the accused and the complainant cannot be disturbed for the sake of trial in the FIR. The judgement was presided by Honourable Ms. Justice Amarjot Bhatti.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The respondent had filed an FIR against the petitioner on grounds of forcible rape. The respondent was married  and then divorced, and stayed with her parents where the aforesaid incident occurred. Thereafter, the incident was narrated by the respondent and marriage was solemnised whereby the petitioner fled from his house. The FIR was registered by the respondent after this incident.

This petition was filed to quash the aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise. She confirmed that this compromise has been effected without any pressure, coercion from any side and she has no objection regarding quashing of FIR, and the same was confirmed by the petitioner in a separate statement.

JUDGEMENT:

The Court held that Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC is a serious offence and is non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, the compromise arrived between the petitioner-respondent cannot be ignored. The Court also referred to Jatin Aggarwal v/s State of Telangana & Anr 2022(2) R.C.R. (Criminal), 603), and held that married life cannot be disturbed for sake of the trial in the aforesaid FIR.

“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 ARYA THAKUR.

 

 

The single judge bench consisting of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday in the case of Arabinda Das v. State of West Bengal (WPA 9482 of 2023) imposed a cost of Rs. 80,000 on State authorities for demolishing a private structure without complying with the statutory provisions of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 and disregarding the pending judicial proceeding before the High Court.

Facts of the Case:

On April 18, the petitioners filed the writ petition. On April 17 and 18, a notice was served on the State respondents. The petitioners also informed the respondents of the matter being discussed at 2 p.m. on April 19. The petitioners’ structure, however, was demolished on April 19 by the BDO, Murshidabad, in accordance with the impugned order dated March 29, 2023, which bore the date March 21, 2023.

Order Review:

“The facts which were brought to the Court’s notice today are entirely different and disturbing to say the least.”, the Court said. The court observed that the State authorities had acted in complete violation of the legal rights of the petitioners who have approached the Court for redress and also in blatant violation of the procedure mandated under the 1962 Act. “Calling upon political functionaries to lend support to an act which is ex facie illegal aggravates the malice and is evidence of the premeditated nature of the act thereof. The State respondents have disregarded a pending judicial proceeding and have sought to frustrate the same. The respondents have sought to out-manoeuvre and overreach the Court and must therefore pay –literally for their conduct,” said the court. Thus, the court directed the State respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the petitioners by 12 PM, April 21.

Click here to view the judgment

“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 falls into the category of the 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”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY DIVYA SHREE GN

The single judge bench consisting of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Biswas v. UOI (WPO 1785 of 2005)  ruled that an order of acquittal by the Criminal Court does not automatically entitle an employee to exoneration and consequential reliefs, such as back wages for the period of suspension withheld as a penalty by the Disciplinary Authority, if the acquittal is not based on merits.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner was serving as an Assistant with the Life Insurance Corporation Limited (LIC) when on November 3, 2000, a criminal case was instituted against him under Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy), Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), Section 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating) and Section 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of IPC for allegedly having forged documents submitted to the British Consulate to obtain visas for himself and his family members. On November 3, 2000, the petitioner was working as an Assistant with the Life Insurance Corporation Limited (LIC) when a criminal case was filed against him under IPC Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (Forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record). The respondent authorities informed the petitioner in a letter dated December 29, 2004 that the order of acquittal was granted on technical grounds and that his case fell within the scope of Regulation 38(b) of the LICI (Staff) Regulations 1960.

Judgment Review:

“The nature and scope of a criminal proceeding is different from that of a departmental disciplinary proceeding. Thus, an order of acquittal does not automatically conclude the departmental proceeding. Merely because an accused has been acquitted, the power of the concerned authority to continue with the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor is its discretion in any way fettered” , the court noted.  The Court observed that the order of acquittal may be taken into account but the same would not have the overwhelming effect of eclipsing the charges in a disciplinary proceeding. Both proceedings operate in different fields with different objectives so subsequently, the standard of prood would differ too.  The court noted that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner’s case ought not to be equated with a full exoneration. “There is also no challenge to the order of the Disciplinary Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority on merits or otherwise. Hence, the invocation of Rule 38(b) of the LICI (staff) Regulation Act 1960 is permissible,” the court added. Thus, the court held that petitioner cannot claim back wages for the period of suspension and the basic pay withheld as penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Click here to view the judgment

“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 falls into the category of the 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”

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY DIVYA SHREE GN

In this English contract law case Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement SA v. NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361, the House of Lords addressed the concepts of fundamental breach of contract and unequal bargaining power.

FACTS OF THE CASE : 

A two-year time charter to export coal from Europe to the USA was at issue in this case. The owners were to receive a certain freight rate based on the volume of cargo carried, and the ship was to make as many journeys as feasible. The charterers were required to pay $1000 in demurrage per day if the laytime was exceeded. Because the charterers struggled to efficiently load and unload the ship as well as deliver the cargo to the port, there were significant delays. But the shipowner kept the agreement in place and permitted the charter to run its course for the remaining two years. Only eight round flights were made in all, despite the owners’ claims that they could have done another six journeys with no delays. 

But the shipowner kept the agreement in place and permitted the charter to run its course for the remaining two years. Only eight round flights were made in all, despite the owners’ claims that they could have done another six journeys with no delays. Only $150,000 in demurrage was owed in total. The charterer’s egregious delays amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract, according to the owners, who filed a lawsuit for damages. They argued that their claim should not be limited to the amount of demurrage.

JUDGMENT: 

The owners asserted that the delays constituted a fundamental violation of the charterparty because they were so significant. In addition, they claimed that the Karsales Ltd. v. Wallis case meant that in the event of a fundamental breach, the law automatically denied such protection of any exclusion clauses because the $1000 per day demurrage was so pitiful that the term amounted to an exclusion clause depriving the shipowner of appropriate compensation.

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.