After ruling that it is a valuable right of a retired employee, the Calcutta High Court recently ordered the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest for delayed payment of gratuity and arrear pension amount to an Assistant Teacher.

In the case of Pranesh Kumar Kar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors (W.P.A. 7576 of 2022), Honourable Justice Amrita Sinha observed that an employee has a statutory right to receive gratuity and pension upon retirement. If payment of the gratuity and pension is delayed, the retired employee is almost certainly entitled to interest.”

Facts of the case:

In this case, the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher who retired on October 31, 2020, and his complaint was that, despite the fact that the Pension Payment Order was issued on February 28, 2022, the gratuity and arrear pension amount was disbursed on March 11, 2022. As a result, he sought interest on the delayed payment of the gratuity and the arrear pension amount.

Taking note of the complaint, the Court stated that it is the State’s legal obligation to pay the gratuity and pension amounts on time. It was also stated that if the State failed to do so and released the amount after an unjustified delay, it is obligated to pay interest to the retired employee.

Court’s Findings:

The Court also stated that pension and gratuity are welfare provisions that aim to maintain the life of a retired employee and his or her dependents and are compensatory in nature.

“It is well established that a retired employee’s right to receive his retiral dues on the date of attaining superannuation is a valuable right that accrues in his favor on the date of attaining superannuation. Furthermore, gratuity and pension are no longer regarded as a gift to be bestowed by the State at its discretion “, the Court emphasized even more.

As a result, the Court ordered the concerned Treasury Officer to pay the writ petitioner interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the gratuity and arrear pension calculated on and from the due date until the date of actual payment, provided the delay was not caused by the petitioner. The Court also warned that the Treasury Officer would not be required to pay interest if the delay was caused by a lapse on the part of the teacher.

Payment was to be made within eight weeks of the order. In addition, the Court directed the concerned respondent authority to take appropriate legal action against the erring officer(s) responsible for the delay in releasing the petitioner’s retirement benefit.

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 Manju Molakalapalli.

Click Here To View Judgement

Abhishek Banerjee, National General Secretary of the Trinamool Congress, and his wife Rujira Banerjee were granted permission by the Calcutta High Court to travel to Dubai for medical treatment. This is despite the fact that the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is investigating the two in a coal smuggling scheme, has objected to their travel.

In the case of Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors (WPA 9723 of 2022), a single Judge Bench of Honourable Justice Bibek Chaudhuri asked the petitioners to file a joint undertaking before the concerned authority of the Enforcement Directorate in Kolkata, mentioning the information and the date of return as fixed by the Court.

Facts of the case:

Abhishek Banerjee had approached the High Court earlier in the day, alleging that the ED had denied him permission to travel to Dubai for medical treatment.

Last month, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of a Delhi High Court order refusing to quash summons issued to the MP and his wife for appearance in New Delhi for questioning in connection with the coal scam case. A Bench comprised of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Sudhanshu Dhulia issued a slew of directives and also stated that the Directorate is free to summon Banerjee to its office in Kolkata with at least 24 hours’ notice.

Banerjee’s counsel informed Justice Bibek Chaudhuri that a letter was written to the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement on May 31 stating, inter alia, that he is suffering from an eye ailment as well as Neurofibroma for which he is undergoing medical treatment which would require him to travel abroad and thus had prayed that his personal attendance be excused for the time being.

Court’s Findings:

The Court was also informed that he had purchased airline tickets for himself and his wife from Kolkata to Dubai on June 1, 2022, with a return ticket on June 10, 2022. The Enforcement Directorate, on the other hand, had denied the petitioners’ request to travel abroad, fearing that he and his wife would flee to Dubai.

The Court granted the TMC MLA and his wife permission to travel to Dubai for medical treatment, stating, “Considering the instant application purely on humanitarian grounds, this Court permits the petitioner no.1 and his wife to visit Moorfields Eye Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates between the 2nd and 10th of June, 2022.”

“The petitioners shall submit the copies of the air tickets and the address where they would stay in Dubai during the particular period to the Enforcement Directorate with the phone numbers of the Hospital and the place of accommodation of the petitioners so that the Enforcement Directorate can keep a track of the whereabouts of the petitioners,” the Court said, directing them to submit details about their accommodation and the hospital where medical treatment will be sought.

Following a review of the record, the Court concluded that it is not the Enforcement Directorate’s fault that the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation. The Court went on to say that the right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, includes the right to proper medical treatment.

“It goes without saying that the right to life is the most important fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution,” the court said. The right to life includes the right to adequate medical treatment. A person cannot be forced or compelled to seek medical treatment in a specific country if he believes that his medical treatment will be more effective in hospitals in another country. If a patient has the means, he is free to go to any doctor or hospital of his choice. The state cannot prevent a patient from receiving proper medical treatment of his choice.”

The Court also stated that by allowing the petitioners to travel abroad for medical treatment, the Supreme Court’s solemn orders are not being violated.

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 Manju Molakalapalli.

Click Here To View Judgement

The Calcutta High Court recently ruled in Rajina Begam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors (W.P.A. 9076 of 2022) that the Constitutional Court’s power cannot be used as a coercive mechanism and thus directed the aggrieved party to seek relief from the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate regarding the alleged police inaction.

Facts of the case:

Honourable Justice Bibek Chaudhuri was hearing a case in which the petitioner claimed that the respondent and his associates had manhandled her and violated her modesty during an altercation over construction on a disputed property.

Following that, the petitioner filed an application with the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Following that, the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the jurisdictional police station’s concerned police authorities to begin an investigation. The petitioner, however, claimed that despite such a directive, the police authorities had taken no action against the respondent and that the alleged harassment was continuing.

During the proceedings, the State’s counsel filed a police report based on the complaint police had received. The Court was informed that the respondent had received a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC and had been questioned by the police. Following that, the respondent surrendered before the concerned Magistrate and obtained a bail order.

Court’s Findings:

The Court stated after reviewing the police report, “Considering the police report, I do not find any support of the petitioner’s allegation that police did not take any action and started investigation of Deganga Police Station Case No.299 of 2022.”

Further emphasizing that the Constitutional Court’s power cannot be used as a coercive mechanism, the Court stated,

“The Constitutional Court’s authority cannot be used to impose coercion on an individual. If the petitioner has any concerns about the course of the investigation, she may file a complaint in the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate.”

As a result, the Court dismissed the plea and noted that the petitioner’s husband had also filed a similar application, which had previously been dismissed with costs.

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 Manju Molakalapalli.

Click Here To View Judgement

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the accused cannot be found guilty if the prosecution’s required chain of events is not proven is upheld by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Hidayat Ali v. the State of Uttarakhand through a Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A criminal appeal was filed in opposition to a ruling that found the appellant guilty of crimes covered by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition to this, he was given a life sentence of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The offender received a three-month sentence of strict jail for failing to make the required payment.

As per the written report, the father of the appellant was allegedly assassinated by throat cut. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against unidentified individuals. After the incident was looked into, the appellant was named on a charge sheet.

The case was forwarded to the Court of Sessions after compliance with Section 207 CrPC. Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the sessions judge drafted the charges. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had fully established its case against the accused-appellant after reviewing all of the available material. As a result, it went on to convict and sentence the accused appellant.

JUDGEMENT

The Court cited the case of Padam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Appeal (Crl.)  679 of 1997), in which it was determined that the accused is presumed to be innocent when they are first accused and such presumption lasts until they are found guilty by the final Court of Appeal and that neither an acquittal nor a conviction in the trial court will affect such presumption.

The Court also observed that there is always a risk that imagination or suspicion will take place of objective evidence in a case that relies heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Thus, the Uttarakhand High Court overturned the conviction, pointing out that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the accused cannot be found guilty if the prosecution’s required chain of events is not proven. According to established legal rules, the prosecution should present and prove all the evidence necessary to establish a full chain without a break and the possibility that no one other than the accused committed the crime.

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 the 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 NISHTHA GARHWAL

Click here to view the judgement 

 

 

Income of Mussoorie Development Authority not the income of State is upheld by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of  Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr by Bench constituted by Acting Chief Justice S.K. Mishra and Justice Alok Kumar Verma.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, the appellant, filed its income tax return stating zero income. The appellant’s income tax return was chosen for scrutiny evaluation. The Assessing Officer (AO) discovered that the Assessee, that is, the appellant had a “Infrastructure Fund” in its books of accounts, to which some receipts were credited and out of which certain expenses connected to infrastructure were paid.

 The AO approved the aforementioned infrastructure expenditures made by the appellant and attempted to tax any remaining funds found in the “Infrastructure Fund” of the appellant accounting records. According to the appellant’s testimony that was submitted before the AO, the State Government had an overriding title on the receipts that appear in the aforementioned “Infrastructure Fund” and as a result, they did not contribute to the appellant’s total income.

The AO disregarded the appellant’s representations and issued a ruling adding specific amounts to the appellant’s income. As a consequence, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) in opposition to this order. It was held by the the CIT(A) that there is no overriding title of the State Government in relation to the “Infrastructure Fund” account that the appellant maintains, hence the funds in that account should be included in the appellant’s income.

According to the CIT(A), as the appellant is a corporation, he does not possess the status of a state government, which is free from paying taxes. The appellant appealed to the ITAT against the decision of the CIT(A). The ITAT rejected the appeal and upheld the CIT’s decision. Then, the appellant appealed against the judgement of the ITAT in the High Court of Uttarakhand.

JUDGEMENT

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that even if a Development Authority established by an Act of the State Legislature does not engage in any trade or business as defined by Article 289(2) of the Constitution of India, it still maintains a separate legal identity from the State and as such. Therefore, its income cannot be regarded as the State’s income for the purpose of being exempt from Union taxation under Article 289(1) of the Constitution.

The Court also held that the assets and funds of the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, which was established in accordance with the U.P. Urban, Planning & Development Act, 1973, were only supposed to pass to the State Government upon its dissolution. As a result, the Court determined that the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority’s levies were taxable in its possession and were not subject to the principle of revenue diversion due to a superseding title.

Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the 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 the 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 NISHTHA GARHWAL

Click here to view the judgement