0

Supereme court orders to establish Central empowered committee to address issues regarding forest, environment and wildlife

Blog

Title: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202/1995

Dated on: 31.1.2024

Corum:  HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

& JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Facts of the case

The lawsuit began in 1995, when environmental activist T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court of India. Thirumulpad aimed to safeguard and conserve forests, wildlife, and the environment throughout the country. Over the years, the Court has issued numerous temporary orders and directions to address a variety of environmental challenges.

Centralized Empowered Committee (CEC):

In 2002, the Supreme Court established the CEC as an ad hoc body to supervise the implementation of its forest and wildlife rulings. The CEC was responsible for ensuring compliance with environmental standards and laws. However, issues were raised regarding the CEC’s operation, particularly its ad hoc character and the age of certain members.

Legal analysis

Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Central Government to constitute an authority or a committee for the purpose of exercising and performing such of the powers and functions of the Central Government under the Act as may be delegated to it. This section is relevant to the case because it was used by the Central Government to establish the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as a permanent authority for monitoring and ensuring compliance with Supreme Court orders pertaining to the environment, forest, and wildlife, as well as related issues arising from them. The Supreme Court established the CEC as an ad hoc committee in 2002, but the Central Government institutionalised it as a statutory body in 2023 through a notification under Section 3(3) of the Act.

Court analysis and judgement

The Supreme Court in the present case authorized the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to establish the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as a permanent statutory entity for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the Court’s environmental orders. 

The Court ordered the CEC to take specific steps to increase institutional transparency, efficiency, and accountability in its operations, such as developing guidelines, operating procedures, and annual reports, as well as keeping a website and database of its cases and recommendations. 

The Court also developed some new principles for effectively monitoring the various bodies, institutions, and regulators established to protect forests, wildlife, the environment, and ecology, such as the National Green Tribunal, the National Coastal Zone Management Authority, and the Central Groundwater Board. the importance of environmental rule of law, as well as the CEC’s function as a facilitator and catalyst in ensuring that the Court’s orders and environmental laws and regulations are followed.

“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- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

0

Appeal filed with dishonest intention and lack of evidence can not stand in SC : Justice Anirudh Bose J.

Blog

Title: SACHIN GAG V STATE OF UP 

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4415 OF 2023)

Dated on: 23.1.2024

Corum:  HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Facts of the case

In the present case the appellant, Sachin Garg, was the plant manager of Exide Industries Limited (EIL), a corporate entity located in Bawal, Haryana. Saurabh Sharma, respondent no. 2, was the provider of Dissolved Acetylene Gas (DA Gas), which was utilized to manufacture batteries in the factory. The dispute arose from a purchase order issued for the supply of DA Gas, which was changed twice based on representations made by respondent no.23. The respondent no.2 claimed that the appellant owed him Rs.9,36,693.18/- for work completed in December 2019, however the appellant disputed both the rate and the amount. The respondent no.-2 Mr. Sharma filed a criminal complaint against the appellant under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for cheating and criminal breach of trust, intentional insult and criminal intimidation. The appellant filed a challenge to the complaint and summoning order in the Allahabad High Court, but received no relief. He then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India.

legal issues:

(a) whether the complaint and summoning order revealed an offence under Sections 405, 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC

 (b) whether the dispute was a civil dispute arising from a breach of contract rather than a criminal offence

 (c) whether the complaint could be maintained without arraigning the principal company (EIL).

Legal analysis

Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the offence of criminal breach of trust, which occurs when a person who is entrusted with property or has dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriate, converts, uses or disposes of it in violation of any direction of law or contract.

Section 406 of the IPC: This section prescribes the punishment for criminal breach of trust, which is imprisonment for up to three years or fine or both.

Section 420 of the IPC: This section defines the offence of cheating, which occurs when a person dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property or to do or omit to do anything, by deceiving or fraudulently using any false representation.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section empowers the High Court to quash any criminal proceeding or order if it is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Section 202 of the CrPC: This section lays down the procedure for inquiry by a Magistrate before issuing process, which may include examination of witnesses or directing an investigation by a police officer or any other person.

In this case the appellant challenged the complaint case and the summons order issued by the Magistrate under Sections 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC, by filing an application under Section 482 of the CrPC in the High Court, contending that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence and that it was a commercial dispute, which should be resolved by civil court.

Court analysis and judgement

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, dismissing the complaint and quashing the order. The Court ruled that the allegations made by respondent no.2 did not constitute an offence under Sections 405, 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC because they lacked the essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of property, dishonest intention of inducement, intentional insult, or threat to cause injury. The Court stated that the disagreement was solely business in nature and contained no element of criminality. The Court also remarked that respondent no.2 ascribed the misconduct to the appellant, despite the fact that the work was done for EIL, and that the allegation of criminal intimidation was ambiguous. The Court concluded that the Magistrate had failed to apply his mind in issuing summons, and the High Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent the Criminal Court from abusing its power. As a result, the Court reversed the assailed verdict and dismissed the criminal case.

“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- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

0

A contemnor does not continue to reap the benefits of his disobedience by simply suffering the punishment meted out to him: Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , ,

Case title: Amit Kumar Das Vs Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust.

Case no.: SLP (Civil) no. 34892 of 2014

Decided on: 30.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal rests on the high court divisional bench’s contempt proceedings for the contemnor’s act, which was not only illegal and invalid but also deliberate disobedience to the stay order issued in the first appeal. The Division Bench decided that lifting the stay order from the first appeal would be more justifiable than initiating contempt proceedings.

The problem started when the respondent filed a lawsuit seeking property damage, possession recovery, and title declaration. The possession suit has a ruling from the court. The appellant then filed an appeal in the high court after the respondent filed an execution petition.

On March 3, 2010, the high court issued a stay order and told the appellant to deposit the amount of 10 lakhs within two months.

ISSUES:

Is it correct for the court to lift the stay in order to bring forth contempt proceedings?

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant argued that the High Court’s exercise of contempt jurisdiction precluded it from reversing the stay order issued in the appeal. He would point out that the High Court shouldn’t have used this tactic in the contempt case and that the Trust didn’t take any action to request such relief in the appeal.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

Respondent trust argued that the stay order dated 03.03.2010 in the appeal stood vacated automatically in terms of order thereof, as there was a default in the making of deposits as directed in the earlier clauses, and therefore the impugned order does not warrant interference at this stage.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court referred to the cases of Mohammad Idris vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji and Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. The courts upheld a principle in these rulings: in addition to penalising a contemnor for disobeying its commands, the Court may make sure that the contemnor does not continue to profit from his disobedience by simply receiving the punishment that has been meted out to him.

The court in this case determined that because of the particular facts of this case, the High Court’s exercise of contempt jurisdiction in vacating the stay order in the appeal did not take on a restitutive or remedial nature. Even the High Court found that the stay order’s status quo condition had been fully violated, and vacating the order had no effect on returning the parties to their pre-violation positions or denying the contemnor the benefit of the already-concluded disobedience.

It is evident that the High Court’s action exceeded the limits of its contempt jurisdiction, and it is therefore unsupportable. In that sense, the contested order is revoked. We believe it is appropriate to remand the case to the High Court so that it can continue with the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, as we have now set aside the High Court’s alternative course of action, even though the High Court refrained from doing so due to this misguided measure, even though it found the contemnor guilty of wilfully violating the status quo condition in the stay order.

“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 – Surya Venkata Sujith

 

Click to read the judgement

0

Maintaining a sexual relationship with consent from the inception is not an offence: Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , , ,

Case title: Sheikh Arif vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case no.: Criminal appeal no. 1368 of 2013

Decided on: 30.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal is in the case of rape based on a false promise of marriage. The second respondent filed a complaint against the appellant at the Sadar Police Station in Nagpur. According to the complaint, the appellant and the second respondent first met in 2011. They became acquainted with each other and entered into a relationship. The second respondent alleges that the appellant attempted to maintain a physical relationship with her but she prevented him from doing so. However, by making a false promise of marriage, the appellant engaged in sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions.

During sexual intercourse, she became pregnant and had an abortion. She then engaged with the appellant. For the second time, she became pregnant. The second respondent then saw photos of the appellant’s engagement ceremony with another woman on his cell phone. The second respondent stated that she was informed the day before the complaint was filed that the appellant had married another girl. The appellant claims that there was a Nikah between him and the second respondent at Dargah. The appellant’s case is that he was unable to produce the original Nikahnama, but the police seized a copy of it.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the appellant maintained a relationship based on a false promise of marriage?

LEGAL PROVISION:

According to Section 375 of the IPC, if the victim of the alleged rape is over the age of 18, having a sexual relationship with her consent is not a crime.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant’s learned counsel argued that their long-standing relationship with the second respondent was always consensual. He stated that the appellant married the second respondent on January 20, 2017. He argued that the appellant’s prosecution constitutes an abuse of legal process.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The State’s counter-claim stated that the report of a handwriting expert was requested in order to determine the genuineness of the signatures on the Nikahnama. The learned counsel for the second respondent contended that, even if it is assumed that the second respondent consented to the continuation of a physical relationship, this consent was tainted by fraud and misconception. She contended that, despite the Investigating Officer’s repeated requests for the appellant to produce the original Nikahnama, he failed to do so, and thus an adverse inference must be drawn against him. She urged that, in any case, the issues raised could only be addressed during the trial.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court cited the case of Anurag Soni, which held that if the victim’s consent is based on a misconception, it is irrelevant because it is not voluntary consent. If it is established that the victim’s consent was obtained as a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and the offence of rape will be proven.

The court noted that the second respondent was admittedly older than 18 when the relationship began. It also stated that at the time the complaint was filed, the second respondent was 24 years old.

Despite the fact that the second respondent claimed it was a forced relationship, she did not file any complaints until the complaint date. According to the second respondent, the appellant and the second respondent held an engagement ceremony in July 2017. As a result, on the facts of the case, it is impossible to accept that the second respondent maintained a physical relationship with her from 2013 to 2017 based on a false promise to marry.

Now, when it comes to the Nikahnama, it is true that the original could not be produced. However, the seizure panchnama indicates that a carbon copy of the Nikahnama was taken. The police officers present at Nikah recorded the statement of one Burhanuddin. He confirmed the fact that the appellant and the second respondent performed Nikah together.

The doctor who treated the appellant and second respondent claimed that the second respondent informed her that the appellant was her husband.

Finally, the court found that the appellant’s physical relationship with the second respondent was consensual. In fact, she attended the engagement ceremony without protest. However, she denies that she married the appellant. Taking the prosecution’s case as true, it is impossible to accept that the second respondent maintained a physical relationship solely because the appellant made a promise of marriage.

As a result, the impugned judgement and order, as well as the charge sheet filed on the basis of the same, are quashed and set aside, and all future proceedings in the case are quashed.

 

“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 – Surya Venkata Sujith

 

Click here to read the judgement

0

Appeal filed with dishonest intention and lack of evidence can not stand in SC : Justice Anirudh Bose J.

Blog

Title: SACHIN GAG V STATE OF UP 

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4415 OF 2023)

Dated on: 23.1.2024

Corum:  HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Facts of the case

In the present case the appellant, Sachin Garg, was the plant manager of Exide Industries Limited (EIL), a corporate entity located in Bawal, Haryana. Saurabh Sharma, respondent no. 2, was the provider of Dissolved Acetylene Gas (DA Gas), which was utilized to manufacture batteries in the factory. The dispute arose from a purchase order issued for the supply of DA Gas, which was changed twice based on representations made by respondent no.23. The respondent no.2 claimed that the appellant owed him Rs.9,36,693.18/- for work completed in December 2019, however the appellant disputed both the rate and the amount. The respondent no.-2 Mr. Sharma filed a criminal complaint against the appellant under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for cheating and criminal breach of trust, intentional insult and criminal intimidation. The appellant filed a challenge to the complaint and summoning order in the Allahabad High Court, but received no relief. He then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India.

legal issues:

(a) whether the complaint and summoning order revealed an offence under Sections 405, 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC

 (b) whether the dispute was a civil dispute arising from a breach of contract rather than a criminal offence

 (c) whether the complaint could be maintained without arraigning the principal company (EIL).

Legal analysis

Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the offence of criminal breach of trust, which occurs when a person who is entrusted with property or has dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriate, converts, uses or disposes of it in violation of any direction of law or contract. 

Section 406 of the IPC: This section prescribes the punishment for criminal breach of trust, which is imprisonment for up to three years or fine or both.

Section 420 of the IPC: This section defines the offence of cheating, which occurs when a person dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property or to do or omit to do anything, by deceiving or fraudulently using any false representation.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section empowers the High Court to quash any criminal proceeding or order if it is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Section 202 of the CrPC: This section lays down the procedure for inquiry by a Magistrate before issuing process, which may include examination of witnesses or directing an investigation by a police officer or any other person.

In this case the appellant challenged the complaint case and the summons order issued by the Magistrate under Sections 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC, by filing an application under Section 482 of the CrPC in the High Court, contending that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence and that it was a commercial dispute, which should be resolved by civil court.

Court analysis and judgement

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, dismissing the complaint and quashing the order. The Court ruled that the allegations made by respondent no.2 did not constitute an offence under Sections 405, 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC because they lacked the essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of property, dishonest intention of inducement, intentional insult, or threat to cause injury. The Court stated that the disagreement was solely business in nature and contained no element of criminality. The Court also remarked that respondent no.2 ascribed the misconduct to the appellant, despite the fact that the work was done for EIL, and that the allegation of criminal intimidation was ambiguous . The Court concluded that the Magistrate had failed to apply his mind in issuing summons, and the High Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to prevent the Criminal Court from abusing its power. As a result, the Court reversed the assailed verdict and dismissed the criminal case.

“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- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

1 … 90 91 92 93 94 … 1,824