Blog - Page 91 of 1824

6 Feb

High Court Chief Justices should oversee trials and ensure swift resolution of criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs: SC

Prime Legal

Blog #writpetition #representationofpeopleact #section8 #disposal #criminalcharges #MPs #MLAs

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 699 OF 2016

Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023

CORAM- CJI. Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra

Facts of the Case:

This case involved filing of Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, like Public Interest, which sought two distinct reliefs. The first prayer related to the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The second prayer related to the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

Laws Involved:

Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 deals with disqualifying candidates for membership of Parliament and State Legislatures. It outlines various offenses, such as bribery, undue influence, and corrupt practices during elections, which can lead to disqualification. These disqualifications aim to maintain the integrity of the electoral process and ensure that individuals with questionable conduct or criminal backgrounds are not eligible to hold public office.

Issues framed by the court:

Whether or not the criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies can be disposed of?

Courts Judgment and Analysis:

In this case, the court examined the delays and bottlenecks in the trial process, particularly focusing on cases where charges are framed against sitting MPs and MLAs.

The court analyzed various laws and sections relevant to the expeditious disposal of such cases. Notably, it referred to Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RP Act), which specifies certain offenses that disqualify a person from being chosen as or being a member of Parliament or a Legislative Assembly. The court particularly emphasized Sections 8(1), 8(2), and 8(3) of the RP Act, which outlines offenses like bribery, undue influence, and corrupt practices during elections.

Furthermore, the court referred to procedural aspects such as the role of High Courts, the setting up of special courts, witness protection, and the power of the Chief Justices of High Courts in monitoring and expediting the trial process. The court also discussed the principle of granting stay orders in criminal cases and the need for such stays to have a time limit, as established in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt—Ltd vs. CBI, 2018.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court noted the considerable backlog of cases pending against MPs and MLAs, with a significant portion exceeding five years. The court acknowledged the critical importance of expeditious disposal of these cases for maintaining trust in political representatives and ensuring the effective functioning of democracy.

Based on the analysis, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines and directives. It entrusted the Chief Justices of High Courts with the responsibility of monitoring the trial process and ensuring the timely disposal of cases. The court emphasized prioritizing cases involving serious offenses and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. Additionally, it directed the implementation of measures like setting up designated courts, providing infrastructure and technological support, and creating transparency through the publication of case details on court websites.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition concerning the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs based on the outlined guidelines and directives. However, the court indicated that it would continue to address other issues, such as the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the RP Act, in subsequent hearings.

“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.”

Written by- Aditi

Click here to view the judgment

6 Feb

Supreme Court Redefines Junior Office Assistant Recruitment Amid Legal Debates and Eligibility Controversies in Himachal Pradesh

Prime Legal

TITLE: ANKITA THAKUR & ORS. V. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.

CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7602 OF 2023

DECIDED ON: 9 NOVEMBER 2023

CORAM: JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Facts of the Case

The Supreme Court of India is considering appeals against a ruling rendered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court concerning the hiring of junior office assistants by the Himachal Pradesh government. The appeals are the result of multiple cases and deal with common concerns about the qualifications needed for the position and the easing of hiring regulations. The administration clarified the requirements, which resulted in the controversial inclusion of several candidates who weren’t eligible. The relaxation measures and the creation of the select list were contested in later ads and court cases. Multiple appeals resulted from the High Court’s order to recast the merit list for some seats while upholding the selection process.

Issues Involved

Whether the relaxation of eligibility criteria, especially after the last date for receipt of applications, is legally permissible. Whether the statutory regime, particularly the regulations empowering the Himachal Takniki Shiksha Board, is violated by relaxing eligibility criteria and recognizing private institutions without due verification. Whether the recognition of certain courses from private institutions without proper examination of their status under the statutory regime affects the eligibility criteria and violates constitutional mandates. Whether there is actual ambiguity in the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the 2014 Rules, as asserted by the High Court.

Court’s Observation and Analysis

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the Junior Office Assistant recruitment case in Himachal Pradesh addressed issues of eligibility criteria, relaxation orders, and adherence to statutory rules. The Court criticized the relaxation of eligibility criteria post-application deadline, citing irregularities, and emphasized the need for wide publicity of relaxations. It faulted the use of outdated rules in the third advertisement and stressed that candidates with specified essential qualifications should be prioritized. The Court highlighted the oversight of the statutory regime and disapproved of self-certification in candidate approval. The judgment clarified that employers could issue fresh advertisements under new rules, and candidates in the merit list lacked an automatic right to appointment. Appointments under the first advertisement were not to be disturbed, except in cases of nepotism or mala fides. The Court directed against the closure of selection processes based on unsustainable relaxation orders. All appeals were disposed of, with no costs awarded.

Written by- Komal Goswami

Click to read the Judgement

6 Feb

Inconsistencies in Modi Naturals Ltd: Supreme Court Interprets the VAT Act’s

Prime Legal

Blog #modinaturals#vat#valueaddedtax#supremecourt#justticedychandrachud#justicemanojmisra#justicejbpardiwala

Case Title: M/S Modi Naturals Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Up

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5822-5823 OF 2023

Decided On: 06.11.2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Facts of the Case:

Registered dealers are entitled to ITC for taxable items acquired inside the State under Section 13(1) of the UP VAT Act. But the key is in Explanation (iii) and Section 13(1)(a), which deal with the situation in which exempt items become byproducts of manufacture.

A problem arose with the Input Tax Credit on De-Oiled Rice Bran (DORB), an exempt by-product, for Modi Naturals, a registered dealer that produces Rice Bran Oil (RBO). The business argued that it should be able to receive the entire Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the taxable products it bought in accordance with Section 13.

Legal Provisions

The Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (the “UP VAT Act”) and the eligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) in relation to the manufacture of exempted items as byproducts during the manufacturing of taxable goods have been clarified by the Supreme Court. The M/S Modi Naturals Ltd. case reveals the complexities of Section 13 and its justifications.

Issues

Whether the Assessee is entitled to the full input tax credit (ITC) on by-products (DORB) generated during the production of taxable goods (RBO) was the main question put before the court.

Courts analysis and decision

The legislative aim was made clear by the Supreme Court when it examined Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(3)(b) with Explanation (iii). ITC is allowed for acquired commodities utilised in the production of taxable products under Section 13(1)(a). However, proportionality is introduced in the ITC with regard to the manufacturing of exempt items during the manufacture of VAT products by Section 13(3)(b). Explanation (iii) to Section 13, is the crucial point. It states that acquired goods are regarded as employed in the making of taxable goods if exempted goods are formed as byproducts during the manufacturing of taxable goods. The court made clear that when exempt items are generated as byproducts, this explanation precludes any disagreement regarding ITC.

Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari

click to read the judgment

6 Feb

IBC Provisions for Individuals Deemed Constitutional: Right to Privacy Balanced with Resolution Process Needs

Prime Legal

Blog #ibc#supremecourt#insolvency#bankruptcy#justicedychandrachud#justicemanojmisra#jbpardiwala

Case Title: Dilip B Jiwrajka v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No 1281 of 2021

Decided On: 09.11.2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Facts of the Case:

A three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (“the Court”) recently dismissed a batch of 384 petitions (collectively, “Writ Petitions”) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“the Constitution”) challenging the constitutionality of Sections 95, 96, 97, 99, and 100 (collectively, “Impugned Provisions”) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) regarding the commencement of insolvency proceedings against individuals and partnership firms as codified in Part III of the IBC.

Legal Provisions

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)’s contested provisions apply to individuals and partnership firms. They include Section 95, which gives creditors the authority to start insolvency resolution procedures, Section 96, which places an interim moratorium on debtor obligations, Sections 97 and 98, which specify how resolution professionals are appointed and replaced, and Section 99, which describes the resolution professional’s role in reviewing insolvency applications. Furthermore, Section 100 requires the adjudicating body to decide whether to accept or reject the application within 14 days, allowing creditors to file for bankruptcy if the application is denied due to fraud or resulting in insolvency resolution if accepted.

Issues

The Writ Petitions contend that the Disputed Provisions are unconstitutional because they contravene Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The lack of a court finding of debt and default before designating a resolution expert, the debtor’s lack of a chance to be heard prior to important steps, and the debtor’s severe and permanent repercussions in the event that due process is not followed are among the concerns. The petitioners contend that the authority bestowed by resolution specialists is capricious and goes against the fundamental tenets of natural justice.

Courts analysis and decision

The Writ Petitions were denied by the Supreme Court on many grounds, upholding the validity of the contested provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It said that the adjudicating authority’s judicial decision makes the final decision and that the resolution professional’s duty is facilitative rather than adjudicatory. The court emphasised the reasonableness of obtaining personal financial information and the necessity of striking a balance between privacy rights and the justifiable goal of creating a comprehensive framework for individual insolvency. It also made it clear that the temporary moratorium is protective in nature, not intended to harm debtors but rather to safeguard them from forced creditor activities. Consequently, the court determined that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by the contested provisions.

Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari

click to read the judgment

6 Feb

Power Battle Unveiled – The Legal Confrontation between MSEDCL and RGPPL over Fixed Charges in the Face of Gas Shortage: SC

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #judgement #MSEDCL #RGPP #supremecourt #electricitydispute #JUSTICEDHANANJAYAYCHANDRACHUD, #JUSTICEJBPARDIWALA #JUSTICEMANOJMISRA

TITLE: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED V. RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS..

CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1922 OF 2023

DECIDED ON: 9 NOVEMBER 2023

CORAM: JUSTICE DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JUSTICE JB PARDIWALA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Facts of the Case:

The civil appeal before the Supreme Court of India involved a dispute between the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) and Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited (RGPPL) concerning the payment of fixed charges under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The crux of the matter arose from a shortage of domestic gas, prompting RGPPL to enter into a Gas Supply Agreement/Gas Transportation Agreement with GAIL for Recycled Liquid Natural Gas (RLNG). MSEDCL contested the capacity declarations made by RGPPL based on RLNG, arguing that it was not obligated to pay fixed charges due to the absence of its consent. However, both the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) ruled in favor of RGPPL, holding MSEDCL liable to pay the fixed charges based on the declared capacity using RLNG.

Issues Involved:

Whether MSEDCL was absolved of fixed charges under the PPA due to the absence of its consent for capacity declarations based on RLNG. The interpretation of Clause 5.2 of the PPA and its independence from actual energy delivery in determining fixed charges. The impact of the nationwide shortage of domestic gas on RGPPL’s alternative arrangements using RLNG. Whether the court should deviate from the plain terms of the PPA for business efficacy.

Court’s Observation and Analysis

The court conducted a detailed analysis of the terms of the PPA, emphasizing the independence of capacity charges under Clause 5.2 from actual energy delivery. It highlighted the unprecedented nationwide shortage of domestic gas, underscoring the necessity for RGPPL’s alternative arrangements using RLNG. The court stressed the importance of interpreting commercial documents in line with the original intent of the parties and only deviating from plain terms when warranted for business efficacy. Ultimately, the court upheld the rulings of CERC and APTEL, dismissing MSEDCL’s arguments regarding the requirement of consent for capacity declarations based on RLNG. The judgment provided a comprehensive understanding of the dispute, considering both the contractual obligations and the commercial context. It concluded that the execution proceedings before APTEL should continue, with no order as to costs.

Written by- Komal Goswami

Click to read the Judgement

1 … 89 90 91 92 93 … 1,824