Madras High Court

In this case a petition was filed by the applicant seeking to quash the final report filed against him in the metropolitian magistrate court. The case was M.R. Sivaramakrishnan V/S State of Tamil Nadu & Others [(Mad) 471 (2022)] Crl.O.P No.18261 of 2021 and Crl.M.P Nos.10016 & 10017  of 2021. The case was presided by Mr. Justice R.N. Manjula.

Facts of the case

• The petitioner is said to have harassed the de facto complainant and her sister in filthy language in connection with the parking issue and also threatned her about a pending civil suit.
• The petitioner was charged under Sections 341, 294(4),323,506(i) of IPC and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The petitioner said that alleged offence took place inside the complainant house and not in the public place.
• The few trial of the case already took placed and few witnesses also had been examined.

JUDGMENT

The court said that after finding that it was inappropriate to call the records and quash them at this stage, the court dismissed the petition. The respondent said that the alleged thing happened outside her house. They quashed the petition of the petitioner and also gave the liberty to the petitioner to raise his points to the trial court in his defence.

  “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 NAMRATA SINGH

Click here to your judgment

Case title – Kamla Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

 

FACTS

The Allahabad High Court paid close attention to the behavior of a few “unruly” lawyers who used slogans outside the courtroom to beat up police officers, including female officers, who were summoned by the court for a criminal writ petition.

Justices Syed Waiz Mian and Suneet Kumar ordered the Registrar General to conduct a covert investigation and submit a report identifying the disruptive attorneys. The Court also ordered that the case would be registered as a separate case.

The criminal writ petition that Kamla Singh had filed for the transfer of a case on the grounds that the police were conducting an unfair investigation was basically what the Court was dealing with. In accordance with the court’s order of December 20, the involved police officers, including the Commissioner of Police, appeared before the bench.

 

JUDGEMENT

The Court issued a brief order in their presence, noting that the investigation had already been transferred to the Crime Branch, directing the Crime Branch’s investigating officer to carry out the investigation in an impartial manner without any pressure or coercion from either party and to complete it quickly.

However, after the order was issued, the petitioner, a practicing attorney, provoked members of the Bar to assault the court-appointed officers. According to the High Court’s order, a large number of attorneys gathered inside the Court and a larger number outside on the verandah and staircase, yelling threats to harm the officers.

In fact, the situation was getting worse, so the court had to rise to protect the officers, including the lady officer. They were taken from the Judges’ entrance door through the Judges’ corridor via the Judges’ lift, and one officer had to go with the Court (Judges) to keep things safe.

Additionally, the advocates pursued the officers toward Gate No. 1 to assault them, according to information provided to the Court. The Court ordered an investigation into the matter by the Registrar General in order to identify unruly advocates because it observed that the Bar members’ behavior of creating a ruckus and continuously murmuring amounts to interference with the judicial process.

In the circumstances, the Court was unwilling to oversee the inquiry, and noting that the Petitioner had a remedy before the Magistrate, the Court rejected the writ petition as infructuous.

 

 

“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 AJAY ADITHIYAA.

Click here to View the Judgement

Madras High Court

In this case Madras High Court after observing that sexual harassment in educational institute are increasing day-by-day. The Madras High Court directed the schools to take proper measure against sexual abuse of Children. The case was A Veronica Mary V/S The State of Tamil Nadu and others [(Mad)487 (2022)]. The Case was presided by the Divison bench of Mr. Justice R Mahadevan & Mr. Justcice Sathya Narnayana Prasad.

Facts of the cases

• The petition was filed Social Activist Veronica Mary seeking proper functioning of mobile counselling centers in schools to prevent sexual abuse against children which is happening in the schools.
• The petitioner said that this also creating fear and restlessness among children.
• The counsel of the petitioner submitted that though the government had passed an order in 2012 for setting up mobile counselling centres for counselling of student and for solving problems related to sexual harrasment in the schools.
• These mobile centres are not that much effective. The court noted that even though the intiative was taken decade ago but still no further changes were done there for its effective working. However it appreciate the government for announcing a helpline number (14417) for students to make calls regarding complaints of sexual harassment. But still it will not cover the non-functioning of the mobile counselling centres.

JUDGMENTS   

The court said that after visualizing the importance of the protection of the child from sexual abuse and directed to the schools that they should take effective action. The bench said that sexual abuse is an assault on the very dignity and personhood of a child, which leaves a lasting trauma on children hindering their allover development. They said that schools should take immediate action regarding the mobile counselling so that children can use it when it is needed.

  “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 NAMRATA SINGH

Click here to your judgment

 

Case Title: Prashant Chandra Versus Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2

 

 

The Allahabad High Court ordered that the applicant outstanding balance on the web portal should be removed immediately following the judgment; however, the authorities allowed the balance to remain on the web portal for seven months, clearly in violation of the judgment.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

A fine of Rs. 100 has been imposed by Justice Irshad Ali’s single bench. 25,000 and a one-week sentence of simple confinement on the defendant, who was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The defendant would spend one more day in simple confinement if they failed to comply. Under Section 12 of the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act, the applicant/assessee has filed a contempt application claiming willful and deliberate disobedience to a Division Bench of the Court’s March 31, 2015 judgment and order.

In the writ petition, the applicant challenged a notice for the assessment year 2012–13 issued by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Lucknow in accordance with Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicant argued that the notice had been issued in excess of the respondent’s jurisdiction and was de hors the provisions of Section 124.

The Assessing Officer’s judgment notice stated that it was overturned on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, and that any subsequent orders should also be overturned. The petitioner argued that the outstanding notice for the assessment year 2011–12 became operative on the web portal for seven months, tarnishing the applicant’s reputation, and that the Assessing Officer must ensure that the entry that is currently there is deleted as soon as the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 is passed. The Income Tax Authority’s action was an intentional and willful disobedience to the judgment.

 

JUDGEMENT

The court decided that because it would undermine the administration of justice if any court’s order could be disregarded without consequence, it is in the public interest to punish civil contempt.

According to the court, “unnecessarily mens rea is not required to be proven in a case of contempt, but in the present case the violation is willful, deliberate, and coupled with intention and motive to harass the applicant.”

 

“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 AJAY ADITHIYAA.

Click here to View the Judgement

 BAIL APPLN. 2940/2022

GP CPT (RETD) DIPENDER KUMAR SINGH vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

This petition is filed for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.58/2017 under Section 406/409/420/120B IPC registered at police station Economic Offences Wing. Bail petition before HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA.

120 B	Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
406	Punishment for criminal breach of trust
409	Criminal breach of trust by public, servant. or by banker, merchant or agent
420	Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2012 the petitioner ventured in real estate business and earmarked a land in sector-102, Dwarka-Gurgaon Expressway. Petitioner was an Ex-Air force officer who took voluntary retirement and ventured into this field. On the basis of his limited knowledge and information he received, he was made to understand that the land intended to offer for investment would come into the municipal limits within a year of completion of the expressway.

The petitioner was novice in the real estate market, he in order to understand the further feasibility of his idea decided to float the entire scheme to the people and as such the petitioner made the offer of share in a 2 acre parcel of land @ Rs.24.00 lacs for 220 sq. yds. or @ Rs.12.00 lacs for 110 sq.yds. of land.

The above offer was restricted only for share in land and not for constructing flats. The petitioner also incorporated a company for this purpose on 29.08.2012.

The scheme attracted various members (complainants). Only 1.4 acres could be purchased instead of the originally decide 2 acres. This was because of the non-payment by the members and some portion being under some family dispute amongst the owners.

The main complainant in the petition Mr.Tanmay Sharma also did not make the entire payment in time and paid the balance amount only in February, 2013 after the registry of the said 1.4 acres of land.

It is alleged that approximately Rs.40.00 lacs of pensionary benefits received post retirement by the petitioner was also lost in sustaining the company and clearing its dues.

Though the FIR was registered in the year 2017 but the petitioner was making all efforts to return the money.

In October, 2017 the petitioner’s brother in law through his company M/s. Jain Link Pvt. Ltd. offered to purchase all assets of M/s.DEF Housing Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs.9.65 crores. The said amount was required to be paid the shareholders and to close the matter. This proposal was communicated to all the members of M/s.DEF Housing Pvt. Ltd.

In the Extraordinary General Meeting of the company 86% of the voters voted in favour of M/s.Jain Link Pvt. Ltd. proposal. But Mr.Tanmay Sharma (complainant) held the land in a hope Dwarka Expressway was likely to be completed in near future.

In 2019 the petitioner was arrested in the above stated matter but since his intention was to pay the entire amount, hence his wife on his behalf, entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 25.06.2019 with the complainant, executed and signed during the bail proceedings before the learned Session’s Judge and only after this the petitioner was granted bail.

As per said MoU the petitioner was to pay Rs.9.50 crores to the members as principle amount as also 12% interest on delayed payments. He was granted conditional bail by the learned Session’s Court on 25.06.2019.

It is stated that he petitioner after March, 2020 sold his property on just to deposit an amount of Rs.9.50 crores and suffered further losses. On account of non-payment of interest the learned Sessions Court on 08.12.2021 had decided to dismiss the bail of the petitioner.

The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CRL.M.C.3268/2021 and this Court directed the learned Session’s Court to restore the original bail application and the petitioner was given an opportunity to file additional grounds for seeking bail and the bail application was directed to be decided on merits.

But learned Session’s Court yet again dismissed the bail application and granted some time for the petitioner to surrender. The petitioner surrendered on 24.09.2022 and is in custody till date.

JUDGEMENT:

The Court observed that the venture of the petitioner into the Real estate was a failed project and his intention to return hard earned money of complainants is seen from the effort he had made to return the principle amount to complainants. The petitioner also endeavors to return interest in due course and if is unable to return then shall face trial. Therefore the Court found it to be unreasonable to keep the petitioner in custody.

He is granted bail on his executing a personal of Rs.1.00 lac with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

The Court ordered that the petitioner should keep his mobile location app open at all time and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

“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 ADITYA G S.

Click here to view your judgement