Blog Archives - Page 358 of 1699

7 Jul

Patna High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956

Prime Legal

Blog #patnahighcourt

TITLE: Dinesh Paswan & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Decided on: 04-07-2023

CWJC No: 14436/2022

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

Facts of the case:

The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief :-

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the notice dated 06.08.2022, issued by the Circle Officer, Barbigha by which the petitioners have been directed to remove the hut/ house from Khata no. 160, Khesra no. 160, Khesra no. 558, situated at village-Rajaura, PS-Barbigha, District-Sheikhpura within a period of 15 days, failing which, the hut/ house shall be removed and expenses of the same would be realised from the petitioner.”

The learned counsel for the respondent- State has referred to the counter affidavit filed in the present case on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 4, wherein it has been stated that the Circle Officer, Barbigha, District, Sheikhpura has passed the final order dated 05.08.2022 under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1956”), hence, if so advised, the petitioners may challenge the same by filing appropriate appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956.

Analysis of the court and decision:

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be granted liberty to challenge the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2022 by filing appropriate appeal, however, they be granted some protection during the interregnum period.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court deems it fit and appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956, challenging the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2022, however, in order to enable the petitioners to file appropriate appeal and seek interim orders, it is directed that status quo existing as on today qua the land/ house of the petitioners in question shall be maintained for a period of four weeks from today.

It is needless to state that in case, appropriate appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider the same on merits and pass a reasoned and a speaking order, in accordance with law, without being impeded by the issue of limitation.

The writ petition stands disposed off on the aforesaid terms.

“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- Meghana D

Click to view judgement

7 Jul

Patna High Court grants liberty of filing appropriate petition for grant of interim relief

Prime Legal

Blog #patnahighcourt

TITLE: Madhusudan Yadav & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Decided on: 04-07-2023

CWJC No: 2322/2023

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

Facts of the case:

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief :-

“(i). For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents concerned to not disturb peaceful possession of the petitioners with regards to the land of Khata No.117(Old)/350(New), Plot No.318(Old)/625(New), Area-2 Acre, Bounded as North- Road, South-Pyne, East-Nala and West-Naresh, situated as Village- Kewali,P.S. and Anchal-Chandauti, District-Gaya.

(ii). For staying the removal proceeding in connection with the aforesaid land till the disposal of the instant case.”

Analysis of the court and decision:

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to raise all the issue raised in the present writ petition in the pending suit bearing Title Suit No.248 of 2022, which is pending adjudication before the learned Court of Sub-Judge-1, Gaya, apart from also filing appropriate petition for grant of interim relief. Liberty so sought is granted.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Written by- Meghana D

Click to view judgement

7 Jul

Patna High Court grants liberty to petitioner to approach District Magistrate

Prime Legal

Blog #patnahighcourt

TITLE: Baijnath Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Decided on: 03-07-2023

CWJC No: 9598/2022

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

Facts of the case:

This writ petition was filed to seek the relief of issuing an appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents to remove the drain/ outlet of the drain over the land of the petitioner appertaining to Khata no. 371, Plots no. 1876, 6475, area 051 decimal situated at mauja Deo due to which the land of the petitioner has been covered by the water all along 12 months causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent State has referred to the counter affidavit, filed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, paragraph no. 5 whereof, is reproduced hereinbelow :-

“That it is humbly submitted that in light of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2023 of the Hon’ble Court as well as in light of the order/ direction of District Magistrate, Aurangabad, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad alongwith circle officer, Deo and concerned Halka Karmchari made spot enquiry and during the course of spot enquiry the following facts came in light :-

(i) That the land in question of the petitioner Baijnath Prasad Gupta is presently parati land, which is situated just left side of the road, which goes from Chhatha Talab to godown. The drain has already been found constructed beside the road of Deo Bazaar and also the pucca nali has been found constructed in the lane (gali), which goes from Deo Bazar road towards the land of the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner is related to opening of outlet of drain/gali into the land of the petitioner.

(ii) That as the land in question of the petitioner as well as other land situated near by it was parati/vacant land and down land since very long time, therefore the flow of wastewater of gali and the house newly constructed both sides of the lane passes/discharges through the drain in question constructed over the government land but the drain water discharges into the land of the petitioner. Presently the flow of water from the drain in question has been connected with the main big drain situated beside the Deo Bazar road and drainage water is being discharged into the said main big drain. The other side of the drain constructed in gali, which outlet opens into the land of the petitioner has been permanently closed by brick, cement and concrete and presently the flow of drain water is not being discharged into the land of the petitioner. After Conducting spot enquiry, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad along with the Circle Officer, Deo submitted his enquiry report to the District Magistrate, Aurangabad vide letter no. 745/L.R. dated 08.05.2023, which is self explanatory.”

Analysis of the court:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, in case he is having any subsisting grievance. Liberty so sought, is granted.

The present writ petition stands disposed off on the aforesaid terms.

Written by- Meghana D

Click to view judgement

7 Jul

Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the orders passed by the tribunal.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhitransportcorporation, #displinaryauthority, #HighCourt, #highcourtdelhi, #increment, #primelegal, Prime Legal

Title: DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs SUBHASH CHAND

Date of decision: July 5, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 8880/2023, CM APPLs. 33544/2023 & 33545/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the orders passed by the tribunal upholding the decision of the Disciplinary Authority dated 16.12.14, who had imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

Facts of the case

The Disciplinary Authority issued an order on December 16, 2014, which the Respondent challenged before the Tribunal. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. In response to the appeal, the Appellate Authority amended the penalty decision by declaring that it will be reduced by one increment without having any cumulative impact in an order dated March 12, 2015. It appears that the respondent sought an additional remedy before the higher authority, which issued a decision on July 3, 2015 denying the proposed remedy.

It should be noted that a chargesheet dated July 26, 2012, was used to launch a departmental investigation against the respondent. It is a given that the Inquiry Officer concluded that the accusations brought against the respondent had not been established in his final judgement. The defendant received a notification from the Disciplinary Authority dated August 14, 2014 asking him to justify why he should not receive the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The investigation report was then sent to the respondent by correspondence dated February 26, 2014. On August 14, 2014, the responder responded to the same.

Analysis and Decision of the court

The court held that – The respondent must be placed in the same position or stage as if no penalty had been meted out to them after the tribunal overturned the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and the Higher Authority.

In response to a particular question about whether the Disciplinary Authority had sent the respondent any disagreement notes prior to administering the punishment, the learned counsel for the petitioner responded in the negative. If that is the case, we concur with the Tribunal’s judgement in the contested order. We see no justification for interfering with the same. Thus the petition is dismissed.

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

7 Jul

Delhi High Court Dismissed the appeal challenging the order of a district court due to lack of filing of written statement on time.

Prime Legal

Blog #120days, #delay, #delhihighcourt, #districtcourt, #highcourtdelhi, #order, #primelegal, #writtenstatement, Blog, Prime Legal

Title: SANTOSH KUMAR AGGARWAL vs M/S ALUCO PANEL LIMITED

Date of Decision: 05th July, 2023

+ RFA(COMM) 131/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

Introduction

Delhi High Court Dismissed the appeal challenging the order of a district court due to lack of filing of written statement on time thus defence for lack of territorial jurisdiction could not be raised.

Facts of the case

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11th November, 2022 passed by the learned District Judge in CS No.1235/2018 whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

Analysis and Decision of the case

This Court determines that the appellant-defendant did not file the written statement or raise any defences despite participating throughout the suit processes, having heard the learned appellant’s counsel and having read the paper book. Despite the fact that an application under ruling IX Rule 7 CPC and an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were both submitted on October 17, 2019, both on the grounds that the Court lacked geographical jurisdiction, the applications were both rejected by a detailed ruling dated October 13, 2022. It is established law that a written statement cannot be filed more than 120 days after it is due. (See: 2019 SCC 210, SCG Contract (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. As a result, the order dated 17th October, 2019 is in accordance with law.

Additionally, this Court believes that the defences of non-delivery of goods against bills nos. 10 and 30 and lack of jurisdiction in the current case are valid arguments. The Trial Court was unable to address the aforementioned defences since, in the current instance, the opportunity to provide a written statement had expired because it had not been submitted within the allotted time frame.

Additionally, this Court also believes that the decision interpreting Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act prospectively renders the statute effective as of August 20, 2022. The aforementioned judgement offers no support to the appellant because the lawsuit in the current instance was filed in 2018.

As a result, the current appeal is dismissed together with any pending petitions since it lacks merit.

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

clcik to view the judgement

1 … 356 357 358 359 360 … 1,699