Blog Archives - Prime Legal

1 Oct

Delays in Pension Payments: Rajasthan High Court’s Landmark Judgment and General Mandamus for Timely Disbursements

Prime Legal

blog, Blog

Title: Jitendra Jain V. State of Rajasthan

Date of Decision: August 19, 2023

Case ID: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4193/2008

Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Introduction: The case of Jitendra Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Others was brought before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur. The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar Jain, sought relief concerning the delay in receiving his pensionary benefits after his voluntary retirement as a Revenue Inspector. The primary issue revolved around the withholding of his retiral dues due to an audit objection and unpaid rent.

Facts: Jitendra Kumar Jain had taken voluntary retirement from his position as a Revenue Inspector on September 26, 2006. However, his retiral dues, including pension benefits, were withheld by the authorities due to an audit objection raised before his retirement regarding irregular pay scale. The respondents contended that Jain had also not paid due rent for his accommodation, leading to a notice being issued in 2007. The rent remained unpaid, and the authorities withheld his entire retiral dues.

Judgment: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, after hearing both parties’ arguments and considering the facts, issued the following judgment:

The court directed the respondents to release all retiral dues to Jitendra Kumar Jain, along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.
The court acknowledged that the respondents could deduct the due rent amount from Jain’s retiral dues during the final payment but strongly criticized the practice of withholding the entire retiral dues for this reason.
The court issued a general mandamus to all departments of the State of Rajasthan, directing them to strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of Chapter VI of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, related to the timely payment of pensions and retiral dues. Failure to comply with this order would result in the erring officers and departments being held responsible for the unnecessary delay and the payment of costs associated with litigation from their own pockets.
The Chief Secretary of the State was directed to circulate the court’s order to all heads of departments for compliance and effective implementation. A compliance report was to be submitted to the court by October 16, 2023.

This judgment not only addressed the specific case of Jitendra Kumar Jain but also aimed to streamline the process of pension disbursements across government departments to prevent unnecessary delays and hardship to retiring employees.

“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 Yagya Agarwal

Click Here To View

1 Oct

Court Upholds Cognizance Order in SC/ST Act Case Against Police Officer Bhuta Ram, Rajasthan High Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog

Title: Bhuta Ram vs. State of Rajasthan

Date of Decision: August 3, 2023

Case ID: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1482/2023

Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali

Intro:

The case of Bhuta Ram vs. State of Rajasthan revolves around the appellant challenging an order passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barmer, Rajasthan. The order in question, dated July 5, 2023, rejected the final report submitted by the Police Station Chohtan (PS Chohtan) and accepted the protest petition filed by the respondent No. 2, Smt. Singari Devi. Cognizance was taken against the appellant for offenses under Sections 341 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Facts:

The complainant in this case, respondent No. 2, along with her husband Raimal Ram, visited the Police Station Chohtan to inquire about a complaint sent by the Collector to the police station on May 28, 2022. During their visit, Bhuta Ram, the appellant, who was the then Station House Officer (SHO) of PS Chohtan, reacted angrily and rudely to their inquiries. He allegedly used offensive language and began physically assaulting Raimal Ram when the latter identified himself as a retired army officer and asked Bhuta Ram not to use inappropriate words.

When Smt. Singari Devi attempted to intervene and defuse the situation, the appellant allegedly pushed her to the floor, causing her distress and disarray of her clothing. Dissatisfied with the police’s response to her complaints, the complainant submitted a report about the incident to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, on June 13, 2022, and requested a medical examination for herself and her husband on June 16, 2022. However, no action was taken on these complaints.

However, the complainant, Smt. Singari Devi, was dissatisfied with the investigation’s outcome and filed a protest petition before the Special Judge. She also had herself and her husband medically examined under Sections 200-202 CrPC. The trial court did not accept the negative final report and instead took cognizance of offenses under Sections 341 & 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant, issuing process against him on July 5, 2023.

Judgment:

The appellant, Bhuta Ram, challenged the order taking cognizance before the High Court. The key legal issue was whether the trial court had the authority to take cognizance and proceed with the case despite the submission of a negative final report by the investigating agency, PS Chohtan.

The Court held that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion in taking cognizance of the offenses against the appellant. It noted that the trial court had considered the contents of the police report, as well as other material and evidence available, and had sufficiently applied its judicial mind before issuing the order taking cognizance. Furthermore, it emphasized the sociological perspective, highlighting the gravity of the alleged misconduct by the appellant, who was entrusted with maintaining law and order.

The Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, affirming the trial court’s order taking cognizance. It clarified that the appellant could raise his objections during the trial court proceedings at an appropriate stage.

Written by Yagya Agarwal

Click Here To View

1 Oct

Delhi High Court Navigates Quorum Quandaries and Remedies in PMLA Appeals

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #moneylaundering, #pmla, #quorum

Case Title: Gold Croft Properties Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Date of Decision: 19th September 2023

Case Number: LPA 167/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad

Introduction

This case involves an appeal against a judgment passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition. The appellant, Gold Croft Properties Pvt Ltd, challenged an order by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which denied their application for deferment of proceedings. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority was not properly constituted at the time. This appeal aims to contest the Single Judge’s decision upholding the Adjudicating Authority’s order.

Factual Background

The case arose when the State Bank of India filed a complaint in August 2020 alleging the diversion of funds by the accused for purposes other than those the funds were availed for. An FIR was subsequently registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in February 2022 for various offenses. The appellant was not initially named as an accused in this FIR. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR against the appellant and others, followed by a Provisional Attachment Order in September 2022. The ED filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority in October 2022 for the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order.

The appellant also mentioned that a chargesheet related to the predicate offense had been filed by the CBI. The appellant then filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority, which is the subject of this appeal, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority lacked a proper quorum as required under the PMLA and that they had not been supplied with a copy of ‘Reasons to Believe’ by the ED, which led to the Provisional Attachment Order.

Legal Issues

Whether the Adjudicating Authority had the required quorum under the PMLA.
Whether the appellant should have approached the Appellate Tribunal instead of filing a writ petition.
Whether the application for deferment of proceedings was maintainable.
Whether the Provisional Attachment Order was justified under the PMLA.

Contentions

Appellant’s Argument: The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority lacked the required quorum as specified under the PMLA. They also contended that their application should not have been rejected without a proper hearing, and a single-member bench was not in accordance with the PMLA.
Respondent’s Argument: The ED argued that the application was not maintainable, as the Appellate Tribunal provided an alternative remedy. They also defended the validity of the Provisional Attachment Order and the composition of the Adjudicating Authority.

Observation and Analysis

The court reviewed the Provisional Attachment Order and the complaint, finding that the Order was based on a detailed analysis of various documents and materials. It concluded that the Adjudicating Authority had sufficient grounds to believe that the appellant possessed proceeds of crime.

The court also clarified that the PMLA allows for the formation of single-member benches, citing precedent from an earlier case (J Sekar vs. Union of India & Ors). The application filed by the appellant requesting a two-member bench was deemed not maintainable.

Decision of the Court

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the Single Judge, and found that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable. It held that the appellant should have pursued the statutory remedies provided by the PMLA, including the option to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

29 Sep

Delhi High Court Clarifies MSME Act’s Applicability: Timing of Registration Matters

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #msme

Case Title: JKS Infrastructure Private Limited v. MSME Facilitation Council and Others

Date of Decision: 18th September 2023

Case Number: W.P.(C) 16567/2022

Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Introduction

This case involves a petition filed by JKS Infrastructure Private Limited (the petitioner) seeking an order to set aside a reference made by the MSME Facilitation Council (Respondent No.1) under section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), and subsequent proceedings initiated based on the said reference. The dispute arose between the petitioner and Lamba Techno Flooring Solutions (Respondent No.3), leading to a reference to arbitration.

Facts

The petitioner, JKS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition seeking the setting aside of the reference UDYAM-DL-10-0032365/M/00003 dated 10th September 2022, made by Respondent No.1 (MSME Facilitation Council) under section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act).
The dispute arose between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 (Lamba Techno Flooring Solutions), which led to a reference to arbitration by Respondent No.1.
The petitioner argued that the MSME Act did not apply as the purchase order and invoice between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 were dated before Respondent No.3’s registration as an MSME on 8th February 2021.

Legal Issue

Whether the MSME Act is applicable when the registration as an MSME occurred after the completion of the works or services?

Contentions

The petitioner contends that the MSME Act does not apply because the purchase order and invoice were dated before Respondent No.3’s registration as an MSME. This argument is based on the timing of registration relative to the contract.

Legal Principles

Registration under the MSME Act must occur before entering into a contract for the benefits of the Act to apply retroactively.
The registration’s timing determines the Act’s applicability to goods and services supplied, with the Act applying only prospectively to post-registration supplies.

Observation and Analysis

The Court considered recent judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Prakash, and M/s. Grand Mumtaz Hotel v. Deputy Commissioner North East Government of NCT of Delhi to resolve the legal issue. These judgments emphasized that registration under the MSME Act must occur before the contract and supply of goods or services for the Act’s benefits to apply. Registration after the fact does not grant retrospective benefits under the MSME Act.

Decision of the Court

In light of the legal precedent established in the aforementioned judgments, the Court ruled that if registration under the MSME Act occurs after the completion of works or the execution of the contract, the Act would not be applicable. Therefore, the impugned references were quashed. Respondents were advised to pursue remedies in accordance with the law.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

29 Sep

Bombay High Court at Goa upholds the appellant’s rights to present his complaint

Prime Legal

Blog, blog

Bombay High Court at Goa upholds the appellant’s rights to present his complaint

Title: Manjunath K. Mudyar v. Mary Noronha

Decided on: September 14, 2023

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1978

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE PRAKASH D. NAIK

Facts of the Case

The applicant had filed a complaint for offence under Section 143, 147, 427, 447, 504, 506(ii) read with 149 of Penal Code, 1860 against the respondents. The learned Magistrate observing that there is no prima facie material to frame charge against the accused for offences acquitted the accused. Advocate for appellant submitted that the impugned order is contrary to provisions of law primarily on the ground that applicant was absent on few occasions. It was submitted that the complainant could not remain present before the trial Court on account of communication gap with his lawyer. The applicant relies upon the affidavit filed by the advocate representing him before the trial Court wherein it is stated that he could not attend the proceedings and also stated that his diary could not be updated.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

It was argued by the respondents that in the absence of any evidence led by the complainant, the learned Magistrate has rightly observed that prima facie there is no material to frame charge against the accused. There is no infirmity in the order. They relied upon the case of Mettu Krishna Reddy v. State of Telangana where the accused were discharged as the complainant was not present. The Court however held that in the interest of justice, the complainant can be given an opportunity to pursue the proceedings. Although the Trial Court is not precluded from discharging the accused at the stage of Section 245(1) or 245(2) of Cr. P.C., but the order should reflect application of mind. Considering all these circumstances, the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration by setting aside the impugned order.

Written by- Reema Nayak

Click to view judgement

1 2 3 … 1,454