Category Archives: Blog

Merely because sentence provided under Section 304-B RPC is seven years and extended up to life imprisonment, it cannot be said that the offence under this section do not have that seriousness which is attracted in case of murder and other heinous offences; these are the sensitive cases which deal with institution of marriage and should be dealt with utmost care and caution and it is not like that there is any bar in granting of bail in such like cases as upheld by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh through the learned bench led by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of Manmeet Singh v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Bail App no.98/2020).

The brief facts of the case are that  on 28.06.2018, police station Sadder, Srinagar, received an information through reliable source that Pooja W/o Manmeet Singh, Srinagar, has ended her life by hanging herself at her residence. During inquest proceedings, postmortem of deceased was got conducted through a team of Medical Experts and various samples drawn during postmortem were forwarded to Director, FSL, Srinagar and HOD, Department of Pathology, GMC, Srinagar, for report/ expert opinion. During investigation, it is also stated by respondent, it came to surface that deceased was married petitioner and had a son out of the said wedlock and that family of deceased was not financially sound and the in-laws, which included husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and wife of brother-in-law used to mentally harass deceased for not being able to fulfil dowry demands, which seems to be circumstances under which death of deceased took place. Accordingly, FIR under Section 304-B, 498-A RPC was registered in police station Sadder, Srinagar and investigation was taken up. The statements of witnesses were recorded and offences were established against petitioner/applicant and others. The accused presons were arrested and charge sheet was produced before the court. Learned counsel appearing for applicant has stated that allegations made and levelled against petitioner/applicant are false, frivolous and without any basis.

The Hon’ble High Court held, “Since in the present case, the trial is in progress and if any finding or view is made by this Court while taking into account the statements of the witnesses or for that matter any finding on their credibility and evidential value at the stage of granting or refusing bail, it would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. The allegations against accused are serious and same cannot be determined that the allegations levelled against accused are either false or true and there is every chance that if applicant is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses as he is facing trial for commission of offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. For the foregoing reasons, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Bail application/petition along with connected CM(s) is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani 

The interest of state requires that there should be an end to litigation. The public policy therefore requires application of law of limitation. The object of the law of limitation is to prevent disturbance of what has been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment and not to restore what may have been lost by party’s own inaction. This was held by the High Court of J&K through a learned bench of The Chief Justice and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of Ghulam Qadir Bhat & Ors Vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) & Ors [LPAOW No. 33/2017].

The controversy raised in this appeal was regarding the two mutations entries No. 156 dated 28 Fag 1996 Bikrami Samvat (corresponding to the year 1939-40 AD) and to the mutation entry 470 dated 10.08.1999 which was alleged to be of the 10th day of the 8th month of 1999 Bikrami Samvat whereas the other side contends that it is of the year 1999 AD of the Georgian Calendar.

In the instant appeal the dispute only remained with regard to the mutation entry No. 470. The sole controversy involved is whether the said entry could have been challenged by way of a revision after more than 70 years if the date of attestation of mutation is taken to be 10.08.1999 Bikrami or it is within reasonable time from the attestation of the mutation if the date is taken to be 10.08.1999 AD.

The sole argument of Mr. M. A. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the aforesaid mutation No. 470 was attested on 10th day of 8 th month of 1999 Bikrami Samvat and not on 10.08.1999 AD and as such the revision against it filed on 01.07.2005 before the Settlement Commissioner under Section 15 of the J&K Land Revenue Act was highly belated and the said mutation could not have been disturbed by filing revision after such a long distance of time.

Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the aforesaid mutation was attested on 10.08.1999 AD and since there is no limitation provided for the revision, it was rightly entertained after 5-6 years of the said entry. The mutation was rightly modified in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law which was applicable to the parties.

The Hon’ble High Court after hearing both the parties, relied on Judgments in the cases of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy Dist. & Anr. vs. D. Narsing Rao & Ors (2015) 3 SCC 695, Zaina vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. 1983 SLJ 1, n State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors. AIR 1969 SC 1297, to conclude that the revisional powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily after an inordinate delay of the passing of the order sought to be revised and stated that “The law of limitation is based upon the public law doctrine that there should be an end to a litigation and that there ought to be finality attained to a decision with the passage of time. The purpose to provide limitation for taking recourse to a legal remedy is not to destroy the rights of parties but to ensure that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek their remedy within the prescribed time or a reasonable time so that the matter may not remain alive forever.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the tender issuing authority ought not tobe questioned, but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The Courts are expected to exercise judicial restraint in interfering with the administrative action, particularly in the matter of tender or contract as held by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh through a learned bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey in the case of Firdous Kamran Shora Vs Union of India & Ors [WP(C) No. 1330/2021 c/w CCP(S) No. 356/2021].

In this case, Mr A. H. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner, submitted that the action and inaction on the part of the Respondents in determining the contract between the parties and changing the site, that too, without negotiating with the Petitioner amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, aimed at giving undue benefit to some other blue-eyed contractor(s). It was submitted that there was no agreement executed between the parties, therefore, there was no question of invoking any clause of the agreement which was not in existence.

Objections stand filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3. It was stated that the BSNL, Civil wing, was assigned the responsibility of execution of NFS project by the Department of Telecommunication (Government of India). The Project, as stated, was meant for enhancing the communication system of the Army and is of national importance as the project site is located at a highly sensitive strategic area of LOC. It was pleaded that the Petitioner was awarded the contract for timely execution, but he, despite repeated reminders, did not execute the same on time, constraining the Respondents to take the impugned action against the Petitioner and re-tender the work, therefore, no interference was warranted in the said process from this Court.

After the court had heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. Then the court had gone through the relevant records made available by the learned Senior Counsel representing the Respondents 2 and 3.

The Hon’ble High Court was of the view that law on the subject of scope of judicial review in the matters of Contract is no more res integra. The court relied on the Judgments in cases of Tata Cellular V. Union of India: (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651, Sterling Computers Limited V. M&N Publications Ltd: (1993) 1 SCC 445, Directorate of Education & Ors. V. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. And Ors: (2004) 4 SCC 19 to conclude that what comes to limelight is that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action and that the Court does not sit as a ‘Court of Appeal’, but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. In conclusion, it was stated that “It has also been declared that Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision and that if a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision, and without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. Furthermore, fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasiadministrative sphere and quashing administrative decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.”

Click here to read the Judgment                    

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

The instant writ petition as regards the legality of the constitution of the Contractor Enlistment Committee can be said to be not maintainable. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Manipur before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh in the matter of Contractor’s Association, RIMS Vs. Regional Institute of Medical Sciences and ors. [W.P. (C) No. 449 of 2021 ].

The facts of the case were associated with a challenge in this writ petition against the notice issued by the Consultant Engineer (Civil), RIMS. The petitioner party stated that the contractors enlisted by the RIMS formed an association. The motive of the petitioner association was to promote and maintain the quality standards of the Health Department, Manipur by executing contract works to the satisfaction of the RIMS authority. They have been executing different types of contract works and were still continuing to do so. Respondent no. 3 issued a notice where amongst many things it was stated that the existing enlisted contractors of the RIMS including the members of the petitioner association ought to apply for revalidation; leading the petitioner association to file such Writ Petition. 

It was contended that such colourable exercise of power by any authority was impermissible and was patently absurd and untenable in the eyes of law. Moreover, the time period mentioned therein for revalidation was too short in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The affidavit filed by the opposition stated that the RIMS authority had extended the time period for the submission of relevant documents. It was also stated that the petitioner was only aggrieved about the time period for submission of their relevant documents on the ground of the Covid-19 pandemic. Further in an affidavit, it was submitted that the rules were modified which were dishonest attempts to cover the faulty regulation behind the back of this Court. All the submissions and pleadings brought forth two issues. One was the legality of the constitution of the Contractor Enlistment Committee and another was relating to the validity and correctness of the notice dated 08-06-2021 issued by the Consultant Engineer (Civil), RIMS.

After considering all the submissions The Hon’ble Court stated that “In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order passed by this Court stands vacated. However, it is made clear that it is open to the RIMS to consider and take a decision, in the event of any representation being submitted by an aggrieved person praying for extension of time, on its own merit either to extend the time period or not to extend it.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

 While adjudicating upon a case passed an order stating that if a Hindu Man wants to adopt a child the consent of his wife is necessary. Even if the husband and wife are living separately and are not divorced in such cases the consent of the wife is necessary. If the consent is not obtained, then the adoption will not be considered valid. This order was passed by Justice J.J. Munir in the case of Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [WRIT – A No. – 10300 of 2017].

The Single bench Judge of the High Court passed the above order dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted that his uncle Rajendra Singh was serving in the forest department and while serving in this department he died. Therefore, the Petitioner was seeking an appointment in a compassionate quota on the grounds that his uncle i.e. Rajendra Singh had adopted him. The Petitioner gave evidence for the Hindu rites that were carried out on adoption in the year 2001. A deed of adoption dated 14.12.2009 was also placed on record by the Petitioner. The uncle of the Petitioner was living separately from his wife for many years but had not divorced her. The present writ was filed as the Department of Forest did not consider the Petitioner as a valid heir of the Rajendra Singh.

The counsel for the Petitioner cited various cases where the validity of adoption is in question factors like the ceremony of adoption and long duration of time has to be given due weight. After analysing a series of cases and hearing both sides the court was of the opinion that The court has said that the adoption of the petitioner has not been done in a legal manner as the Hindu adoption law requires wife’s consent to adopt a child until and unless the wife is not alive or ceased to be a Hindu, or a competent court declares her mentally unwell. Hence, in this, as the uncle of the Petitioner and his wife were living separately and were not divorced the consent for adoption was necessary. As in this case, no such consent was taken the adoption was not considered valid.

In this petition, there were no doubt that Smt. Phulmati was a wife living until the death of the late Rajendra Singh. The two were never divorced, howsoever estranged they might have been. A mere estrangement between the man and wife without disruption of the marital status, in accordance with the law, that may either be by a decree for divorce or annulment or by the death of the wife, would not take the case out of mischief of the proviso to Section 7, requiring the wife’s consent to the adoption.

As a result, this petition failed and stands dismissed.

Click here to read the judgement

 

Judgement reviewed by-Sarita Kumari