0

MP High court emphasizes need for specific allegations in cases of dowry deaths to avoid roping in innocent relatives.

Case title: xxxxx v. State of MP and Anr.

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 18576 of 2022.

Decided on: 14.03.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice G.S. Ahluwalia

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case involves a complaint filed by the wife, respondent no. 2, against her husband, Mahendra Nagpur, and other family members. She alleged physical and mental harassment due to dowry demands. The complaint stated that she was mistreated by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and others for bringing insufficient dowry. The wife returned to her parental home and later lodged an FIR after efforts to reconcile failed. The court examined the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, leading to the quashing of prosecution against some family members due to lack of specific allegations against them.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Sections 294, 323, and 506/34 of the IPC were invoked in the FIR.

Section 498-A of the IPC, which deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or relatives, was also mentioned.

Dowry Prohibition Act:

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were cited in the FIR.

The Act prohibits the giving or taking of dowry and imposes penalties for demanding dowry.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

Belated FIR Lodging:

The appellants argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly and was time-barred.

They contended that the FIR was filed as a counterblast after an application for divorce was submitted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Abuse of Process of Law:

The appellants claimed that the continuation of criminal proceedings against them based on the FIR would be an abuse of the legal process.

They argued that the FIR should be quashed as it was not based on specific allegations and was lodged with extraneous considerations.

Lack of Specific Allegations:

It was contended that there were no specific allegations against some of the appellants, leading to the request for quashing their prosecution.

The appellants emphasized the need for specific allegations to proceed with the criminal proceedings.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondent no. 2, the wife, contended that she faced physical and mental harassment by her husband and other family members due to dowry demands. She alleged mistreatment, taunts, and demands for dowry, which led her to return to her parental home and eventually lodge an FIR.

The respondent argued that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands were genuine and warranted legal action.

It was contended that the delay in lodging the FIR was due to efforts to reconcile and not indicative of the allegations being false.

The respondent sought the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused based on the allegations of harassment and dowry demands.

Emphasis was placed on the need for justice and legal action against those responsible for the mistreatment.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

In the case under consideration, the court meticulously examined the intricate details surrounding the allegations of harassment and dowry demands brought forth by the respondent against the appellants. Despite the contention raised by the appellants regarding the belated lodging of the FIR and the perceived abuse of the legal process, the court underscored that the mere delay in filing the FIR subsequent to a divorce petition did not invalidate the seriousness of the allegations. The court’s analysis emphasized the pivotal importance of specific and substantiated allegations against the accused to warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings. Consequently, the court made a judicious decision to quash the prosecution of certain appellants where the allegations lacked the requisite specificity, thereby safeguarding innocent parties from unwarranted legal implications. This decision was rooted in the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures, ensuring that the pursuit of justice was guided by concrete evidence and procedural integrity. By upholding these principles, the court sought to strike a balance between addressing the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands while safeguarding the rights of all parties involved in the legal proceedings.

“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– Ayush Shrivastava

Click here to read the full judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Legal transparency upheld: Supreme Court warns against misleading PILs and concealing facts

Case title: Smt. Hemika & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case no.: D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No. 15649/2022

Decided on: 20.02.2024.

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Bhandari, Hon’ble Justice nn

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case involves petitioners who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2022 seeking to stop heavy blasting activities and machinery near residential areas. The petitioners were accused of concealing material facts, including ongoing civil litigation involving them and their relatives. The Court emphasized the importance of genuine public interest litigation and warned against frivolous petitions and false statements. The petitioners were found to have encroached on government land and raised constructions in a mining lease area. Due to the lack of truthful disclosure and concealment of relevant facts, the PIL was dismissed by the Court.

 

LEGAL PRINCIPLES:

Article 32 of the Constitution, which deals with the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Article 226 of the Constitution, which deals with the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts.

Precedents set by previous court cases such as “Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.” and “K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors.” which emphasize the importance of genuine public interest litigation and the consequences of concealing facts or filing frivolous petitions.

Environmental laws and regulations related to mining activities and pollution control, as mentioned in the case regarding the grant of mining leases and compliance with environmental clearances.

 

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The petitioners sought to remove the name of an illiterate petitioner (Petitioner No.5) from the PIL, claiming that he was unaware of the compromise in a previous suit involving villagers. The appellants argued that Respondent No.8 attempted to start mining in the disputed area, leading to opposition from villagers and damage to nearby buildings due to blasting activities. Allegations were made that FIRs were lodged against relatives of the petitioners, which the petitioners allegedly concealed in their filings. The appellants contended that mining activities had not commenced in the mining lease area, contrary to the claims made by the petitioners.

The appellants emphasized that mining leases were granted with Pollution Control Board approval and that halting mining activities resulted in revenue loss to the exchequer.

 

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondents argued that the petitioners did not come forth with clean hands before the court and concealed material facts and misrepresented information in their PIL.

It was contended that the petitioners had encroached upon government land within the mining lease area and had constructed buildings, as reported by the Court Commissioner.

The respondents highlighted that the petitioners failed to disclose relevant facts, such as ongoing civil suits involving them and their relatives, and the lack of mining activities in the area for the past two years.

The respondents emphasized the importance of truthful disclosure in PIL cases and warned against misleading the court or suppressing material facts. It was asserted that the petitioners’ allegations of damage due to mining activities were inaccurate, as confirmed by the Court Commissioner’s report indicating the presence of fully grown trees and plants in the mining lease area.

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The Court in the case underscored the fundamental principle that parties approaching the court must do so with clean hands, disclosing all material facts, and seeking appropriate relief without concealing or suppressing information. Emphasizing the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings, the Court warned against abusing the legal process for personal gain, private motives, or oblique considerations. The Court highlighted the significance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being used judiciously to deliver social justice and not for mischief or vested interests, urging parties to act in the genuine interest of the public.

Furthermore, the Court referenced legal precedents that stressed the need for PIL to be approached with care and circumspection, ensuring that it serves its intended purpose effectively. In this case, the Court observed that the petitioners had failed to provide all relevant facts, including ongoing civil litigation involving them and the absence of mining activities in the area. Due to the lack of truthful disclosure and the concealment of material facts by the petitioners, the Court dismissed the PIL and imposed exemplary costs as a deterrent against filing frivolous petitions with oblique motives.

 

The judgment served as a reminder of the principles of transparency, honesty, and genuine public interest that should underpin PIL cases. By dismissing the petition and imposing costs, the Court aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal system, deter unscrupulous litigants from misusing the legal process, and ensure that PIL fulfils its intended purpose of promoting public interest and social justice. The ruling sought to maintain the credibility of the judiciary and uphold the standards of ethical conduct in legal proceedings.

 

“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 – Ayush Shrivastava

Click here to read the full judgement.

 

0

The Supreme Court upholds 50% marks criteria in interview set by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the promotion as District Judges

Case title – Dr Kavita Kamboj Vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors

Case no. – Civil Appeal Nos. 2179-2180 of 2024

Decision on – February 13, 2024

Quoram – Chief Justice of India Dr. D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

Facts of the case

The High Court in the year 2013 stipulated that that an aggregate of 50% marks in the written test and viva voce combined is required to render a candidate eligible for promotion. Whereas, in 2021 a meeting of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee overseeing the Superior Judicial Service acting through the States of Haryana and Punjab resolved that a candidate must secure 50% marks in the written test and 50% marks in the viva voce to be eligible for promotion. This resolution was also approved by a full court.

On 24 August 2022, the process of filling up vacancies for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judges from among the in-service officers was initiated The High Court conducted a written test which was followed by a viva voce. Based in this test, the Registrar (Judicial), on 23 February 2023, addressed a communication to the State Government recommending the names of thirteen judicial officers.

The High Court’s directive faced opposition primarily due to the absence of minimum cut-off criteria for viva voce as prescribed by the Rules. Moreover, the State of Haryana objected to the direction, citing the lack of consultation with the State Government as mandated under Article 233 of the Constitution.

The candidates filed writ petitions before the High Court to restrain the State from accepting the recommendations made by the High Court and for quashing the Resolution of 30 November 2021. The High Court by its impugned order directed the State of Haryana to take positive action in concurrence with the recommendations of February 2023.

Submission of the Parties

The Petitioners submitted that there was no rational justification for prescribing of the minimum cut-off criteria in both the suitability test and in the viva voce when appointments are made for in-service candidates

They contended that the candidates drawn for promotion in the 65% promotion quota and 10% from the in-service are from the same pool. Consequently, a minimum cut-off cannot be logically justified for the 65% promotion quota when there is no such norm for the 10%, which is filled up on the basis of the limited competitive examination.

The Counsel submitted that the absence of notice to candidates about the alteration in the criteria of eligibility and introduction of minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce has resulted in substantial injustice.

The Counsel on behalf of the State submitted that as per Article 233 the High Court ought to have consulted the State while making a modification to its own Resolution for the selection of District Judges. Thus, contended that the directives of High Court suffered from implicit subjectivity and arbitrariness.

Issue – Whether the 65% quota for selection through merit-cum-seniority under the promotion procedure is outlined by Rule 8 of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that since the Rules are silent on the aspect of a minimum cut-off for viva voce, the High Court was justified in prescribing such a condition through a Full Court resolution.

It also distinguished its judgment in Sivanandan CT and others v. High Court of Kerala and others on the ground that in that case, there was already a clear prescription of the rules regarding cut-off criteria. But, in the present case, the Rules were entirely silent regarding prescribing minimum eligibility to clear the test and viva which gave enough space for the High Court on the administrative side to provide the modalities of marking marks.

The petitioners had also questioned the need for an interview, pointing out that the candidates are in-service judicial officers aspiring for promotion as opposed to fresh candidates.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court noted that a candidate should not just show knowledge in the suitability test but must also demonstrate the same in the course of the interview held for the promotion. The Apex Court, thus, stated that the High Court is at liberty to decide the personality and interview requisites of the in-service officers.

The Court also rejected the argument raised by the State Government relying on Article 233 and stated that the State erred in finding fault with the directives of High Court. The Court opined that since the Rules were silent, any issue between the State and the High Court should have been ironed out through a consultative process.

The Court ruled that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal or other infirmity. Thereby, the Court dismissed a batch of special leave petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates and the State of Haryana and upheld a criteria set by the High Court which stipulated that judicial officers with minimum of 50% marks in the interviews to be eligible for promotion to the post of District Judges.

“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 – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Absence of Proper Identification Parade raises Doubt on the Admissibility of the Deposition by the Court: Supreme Court

Case title – Jafar Vs State of Kerala

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 1607 OF 2009

Decision on – March 15, 2024

Quoram – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the case

In this case, the case of the prosecution was that in 2004, the accused persons came with a vehicle to the building where retail shops of Kerala State Beverages Corporation were situated with an intention to commit dacoity. In consonance of the intent, they were armed with deadly weapons like iron lever and wooden bar. The appellant kicked on the naval portion of the security guard at the gate and beat him with an iron lever on the right leg which resulted in fracture. The appellant was convicted under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

Other accused persons beat him with the wooden bar on various parts of his body and then tied his legs and hands with bath towels and made him lie on the cot. Thereafter, they fastened his body on the cot with a piece of bed sheet and the remaining piece was pushed into his mouth. They mishandled him and then committed robbery of mobile phone, wrist watch, and torch. They also destroyed the light in the building and lock of the shutters of the retail shop. Hence, a case was registered against the accused.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance of the matter only against accused No. 2, 3, and 5 as other accused were absconded. The court found accused Nos. 2(Appellant) and 3 guilty and as such convicted them for the said offences.

Submission of the Parties

The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction is based on no evidence and contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

The Counsel for the State, on the contrary, submitted that both the Courts had concurrently, upon appreciation of the evidence, found the appellant to be guilty and hence, no interference would be warranted.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court observed that the conviction of the accused was primarily based on the deposition of PW-1, who was a security guard. The Court noted that PW-1 identified the accused persons since the police had shown him only those two people. Thereby, concluded that the identification of the appellant by PW 1 is quite doubtful as there no identification parade conducted.

The Court pointed out that in the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the identification for the first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt.

The Court thus held that the judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appeal and the Trial Court convicting the appellant are not sustainable in law.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant.

“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 – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

SFDC Ireland’s Services Deemed Technical under Tax Law: Delhi High Court

Case title: SFDC Ireland Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Case no.: W.P.(C) 14636/2023 & CM APPL. 58218/2023

Decided on: 11.03.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case under consideration is W.P.(C) 14636/2023, where SFDC Ireland Limited is the petitioner. The issue revolves around whether TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) was deductible by M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd. when it paid interconnect charges/access/port charges to BSNL. The case requires an examination of the meaning of “fees for technical services” under Section 194-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contends that the services provided by SFDC Ireland were specialized and customized technical services, falling under the definition of “fees for technical services.” However, the respondent failed to provide any material to support the conclusion that SFDC Ireland was not selling standard off-the-shelf software. The petitioner also argues that the respondent did not demonstrate that the SFDC Products departed from a standard scope of services or were customized for individual consumers. The case involves a detailed analysis of the nature of services provided by SFDC Ireland and whether they qualify as “fees for technical services” under the relevant tax provisions.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 194-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961: This section deals with the deduction of tax at source on fees for professional or technical services.

Article 12(3)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA): This article specifies the definition of “fees for technical services” for tax purposes.

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act: This section pertains to the requirement of deducting tax at source on payments made to non-residents.

Section 197 of the Income Tax Act: This section allows for obtaining a certificate for lower withholding tax rates or exemption from tax deduction at source.

Rule 28AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: This rule relates to the consideration of aspects pertaining to chargeability when raised by the assessee.

United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention Handbook: Provides guidance on the interpretation and application of tax treaties.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellants argued that the remittances made by SFDC India should not be considered as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as the SFDC products were standardized, with customers having the option to use them without any customization.

They contended that the services provided by SFDC Ireland were not specialized or customized technical services but rather standard off-the-shelf software products.

The appellants highlighted that the SFDC products allowed customers to input, store, and retrieve their proprietary data through CRM application software, indicating a lack of specialized technical services.

They emphasized that the access to SFDC products was for a limited duration based on subscription fees paid by customers, further supporting the argument that these were not specialized technical services.

 

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondents argued that SFDC Ireland was providing comprehensive service experiences or solutions with the help of technology embedded in the software, indicating a level of customization and technical service.

They contended that even if the SFDC products were not customized for individual consumers, the comprehensive service experiences provided by SFDC Ireland should be considered as technical services. The respondents held that the service experience or solution offered by SFDC Ireland was an integral part of the software application available to any customer, falling within the standard scope of services for technical services.

They also raised the point that SFDC Ireland was providing support, training, and assistance free of charge, suggesting that these services were part of the technical services provided, even if not explicitly charged for.

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court focused on determining whether the services provided by SFDC Ireland could be classified as “fees for technical services” under the relevant tax provisions.

 

After careful consideration, the court made the following judgments: The court observed that the nature of services provided by SFDC Ireland was crucial in determining whether they qualified as technical services for tax purposes. The court noted that the SFDC products were standardized and not customized for individual consumers, which raised doubts about whether they could be classified as specialized technical services.The court emphasized that the services provided by SFDC Ireland were part of the standard scope of services for technical services, even if they were not explicitly customized for each customer. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the comprehensive service experiences provided by SFDC Ireland should be considered as technical services under the relevant tax provisions.

In conclusion, the court’s judgment favored the respondents, affirming that the services offered by SFDC Ireland qualified as technical services for tax purposes based on the comprehensive service experiences provided through the software applications.

“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 – Ayush Shrivastava

Click here to read the full judgement.

1 2 3 1,636