0

In order to convict a person under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, the electric company must afford a reasonable opportunity to the party of being heard: Gujarat High Court

Blog

Anilaba Mangalsinh Rana vs The Paschim Gujarat Vij Company … on 3 May, 2023

Bench: Honourable Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6198 of 2022

Facts

The petitioner is a house-wife and residing in a particular. premises. The Respondent Company granted electricity connection in the name of the petitioner for residential purpose as and the petitioner was regularly making the payment of electricity bills issued by the respondents. One day, the officer belonging to the respondent company came to the premises and inspected the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, a supplementary bill was issued under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act by the respondent. Section 135 imposes punishment for any person who dishonestly uses electricity for a purpose other than that mentioned. On finding irregularity for the offence under Section 135 of the Act, the respondent authority issued Rs.88,117.20 supplementary bill plus compounding charge of Rs.4000/- totaling to Rs.92,117.20. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 stating that the supplementary bill of Rs.92,117.20 was without following due process of law and illegal. However, the respondent authority failed to reply. Consequently, legal notice came to be issued by respondent No.2 however, it was of no avail. Hence, the petition has been filed.

The advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issuance of the impugned supplementary bill was against the principles of natural justice and the position of law. He cited the case of Bhavani Oil Industries v/s. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, reported in 2021 (2) GLH C/SCA/6198/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/05/2023. He held that the petitioner hadn’t been effected a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Judgement

Considering the position of law and the facts of the case, the Court held that the impugned supplementary bill of Rs. 92,117.20 issued by the respondent under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, was undisputedly issued without following the due process of law. The court remanded the matter to the competent authority to reassess and finalize the said supplementary bill, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

click here to view judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

“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.”

0

WRIT PETITON CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF DETENTION PASSED BY COLLECTOR IN ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Blog

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Pedda Matangi Mounika vs The State of AP

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No. 36968 of 2022

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

FACTS

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of her husband by name Peddamathangi Bramhaiah @Brammaiah @Gummagadu, S/o Naganna, aged 30 years, passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector & District Magistrate), Nandyal District as confirmed by the 1st respondent (The State and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that total twenty-seven crimes were registered against the detenue, out of which ten crimes were ended in acquittal, two crimes settled before lok-adalat, four crimes are bound over cases, convicted in one crime and ten crimes are at the stage of investigation and pending for trial. He further submits that the order of detention passed in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without any material.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the orders impugned in the Writ Petition do not warrants any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In this case there is a lapse found while ordering detention and also confirming the same, resulting in the finding that the order itself is not good as per law. Further the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the Act as passing of order of preventive detention is on stale and non- existing grounds. There is no proximity or live link between any of the grounds which were taken as a basis for passing the order of preventive detention by the respondents.

JUDGEMENT

In this case the court held that the order of detention was not based on any material to either substantiate or justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘Goonda’. More so, it has been specifically admitted and mentioned that in the twenty-seven cases which were taken for consideration there was no reference about the granting of bails in the concerned crimes. Thus, it wad obvious that the Sponsoring Authority has not placed the relevant material i.e., bail orders were not placed before the Detaining Authority and there was no effective consideration of this fact. His likelihood of committing crimes after release is also not properly considered. It is clear that the penal laws are sufficient to deal with the situation mentioned in the order of detention and that invoking provisions of preventive detention is completely unnecessary.

The order does not contain the involvement of detenue in the crimes alleged to have been participated by him to show it will effect or likely to affect public order or danger to the public life or health. The same is conspicuously silent in the orders passed by the sponsoring authority. In view of the same the order becomes contrary to law and unconstitutional.

In this case, Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the State Government. Consequently, the detenue namely Peddamathangi Bramhaiah, aged 30 years, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

0

CIVIL REVISION PETITION FILED IN ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF PRINCIPLAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Blog

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

KHANDAVILLI RUDRAVENI vs KHANDAVILLI ANNAVARAM & ANOTHER

BENCH – HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1800 OF 2015

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 11 MAY 2023

FACTS

This revision-petition is directed against the order of Principal Senior Civil Judges Court, Rajahmundry filed under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereunder the Trial Court partly Allowed the application, for restitution of possession of schedule property to the defendant No.2.

The Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.130 of 2009 before the original Court for restitution of the impugned property covered by decree in the partition suit i.e., O.S.No.262 of 1988, and the Trial Court after considering the evidence of both sides placed before it and allowed the application since the said property was delivered in execution of the decree in the partition suit, which was later set- aside in O.S.No.68 of 1993.

The contention of the revision-petitioner, who is the decree- holder in the Partition suit, is that the property ordered for restitution, is not a part of schedule property covered by the partition suit and that it was not delivered in execution of the decree of the partition suit. The contention of the respondent No.1 is that the impugned property is part of schedule property of the partition suit and it was delivered to the revision-petitioner in execution of the decree of the partition decree.

The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner would submit that impugned property is property of the revision petitioner. Plaint schedule of partition suit in respect of schedule property would disclose that the impugned property is not part of the decree covered by the partition suit and therefore, it was not delivered during the execution of the partition decree, but the Trial Court erroneously held that it is a part of the partition decree, and thereby committed material irregularity.

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submit that the revision-petitioner was examined as a witness during the enquiry of the Restitution Application and in the cross-examination, it was admitted that the impugned property is covered by schedule property of the partition suit and later, in the Final Decree Petition proceedings, the Commissioner, in his Report identified the same as schedule property and subsequently in execution proceedings it was delivered to the revision-petitioner; and therefore, since the decree in the partition suit was set-aside.

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 would further submit that the revision is not maintainable since Order passed under Section 144 of CPC is a decree under Order II Rule 2 of CPC and therefore, only appeal lies as per Section 96 of CPC.

The respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.130 of 2009 in O.S.No.262 of 1988 under Section 144 of CPC for restitution of C schedule property and the Trial Court passed the impugned Order, dated 19.01.2015, under section 144 CPC ordering restitution of the C schedule property to the respondent No.1. The revision-petitioner filed the present revision challenging the said restitution Order, dated 19.01.2015 passed under Section 144 of CPC.

As per Section 144 of CPC, what must be restituted is the benefit taken by a party in execution of a decree which has subsequently been varied or reversed. In fact, in proceedings under Section 144 of CPC a new decree or order would be passed on adjudication of the rights of the parties and the necessary relief is given in that decree or order, unless the appellate decree itself decided the point and directed restitution.

JUDGEMENT

This Court in Mohammed Abdul Sattar vs. Mrs. Shahzad Tahera and another2 held that “an Order under Section 144 of CPC is a decree, in view of the definition of decree under Section 2 (2) of CPC.” It was further held that “revision under Section 115 of CPC does not lie and it is not appropriate to entertain petition under Article 227 of Indian Constitution also, where the 2  petitioner has a chance of making exhaustive submissions before the Appellate Court.

Admittedly, the impugned order in the case was passed under Section 144 of CPC. The revision is not maintainable in view of the above legal position that appeal only lies from the decision of the Trial Court passed under Section 144 of CPC. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. The revision-petitioner is at liberty to file appeal as per law.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

0

Karnataka High Court Upholds: Residing Together No Ground to Reject Divorce by Mutual Consent”

Blog ,

Karnataka High Court

DIVYA GANESH NALLUR V. GANESH NALLUR SHIVU

WRIT PETITION NO. 24429 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

Bench- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

Decided On 08-06-2023

Facts of the case-

The estranged couple, acting as petitioners, filed a Petition seeking a decree of dissolution of their marriage based on mutual consent. They presented certain grounds to support their claim. The case was referred to Mediation, and on January 2, 2023, a report was submitted to the court indicating a settlement had been reached. Additionally, the parties submitted a Compromise Petition reflecting the terms of the settlement reached during the conciliation process.

However, the learned Judge of the Family Court in Bengaluru dismissed the request for dissolution of the marriage solely on the basis that the spouses continue to reside in the same household.

The counsel representing the Petitioners raised objections to the impugned order, arguing that in cases such as this, the fact that the parties reside under the same roof is of minimal significance, except in determining territorial jurisdiction. The counsel contends that the order made by the court, based solely on the cohabitation of the spouses, is flawed in its reasoning and perplexing to the Court. The counsel suggests that this fact could potentially demonstrate the amicable behavior of the spouses despite their ongoing disputes.

Judgement

The Court, after careful consideration, has determined that the mere fact of an estranged couple residing under the same roof cannot be used as a sole ground for rejecting their plea for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The Court further emphasized that such a reasoning constitutes a significant error evident on the face of the record.

The Court acknowledged that the fact of cohabitation, despite marital discord, may potentially indicate the spouses’ commitment to maintaining a civil and respectful environment within the household. This observation suggests that the behavior of the spouses, in the midst of their disagreements, may demonstrate a positive cultural attitude and values.

In light of the above, the Court found the reasoning provided by the lower court in denying relief to the parties to be erroneous and of substantial consequence.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

click here to view judgement

“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.”

 

0

Karnataka High Court Rules: Registrar Cannot Direct Registration of Sale Deed After Civil Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance

Blog ,

Karnataka High Court

A Vasudevachar & Others v. The District Registrar & Others

WRIT PETITION NO.48476 OF 2013

Bench- Hon’ble Justice K S Hemalekha

Decided On 29-05-2023

 Facts of the case-

The petitioners in this case have raised a contention regarding respondent No.3’s claim that the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with him regarding the suit property. It is alleged that respondent No.3 presented the sale deed before the sub-registrar for registration, but the registration was refused under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, due to the absence of the petitioners.

Feeling aggrieved by this refusal, respondent No.3 chose to file an appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the District Registrar. However, during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 also filed a separate suit before the Civil Court seeking a decree for specific performance of the contract based on the agreement of sale. Subsequently, this suit was dismissed by the Civil Court.

Despite the dismissal of the suit, the District Registrar proceeded with the appeal by conducting an enquiry and ultimately passed the impugned order.

The petitioners argue that the District Registrar failed to properly consider that, in an appeal filed under Section 72, the Registrar does not possess the power to conduct an enquiry. They rely on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avnash Rani & Anr. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ferozepur & Ors. This judgment established that the power of the Registrar is of a summary nature and limited in operation, and the Registrar cannot override the judgment of the Civil Court.

In summary, the petitioners assert that the District Registrar erred by conducting an enquiry in the appeal filed under Section 72, as per the binding precedent set forth by the Apex Court in Avnash Rani & Anr. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ferozepur & Ors.

Relevant Provisions

the Registration Act, 1908 Related to
Sec. 34 Enquiry before registration by registering officer

 

Judgement

The court has rendered a decision stating that when a lawsuit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement, filed by the intended purchaser, is dismissed, it is contrary to the law for the District Registrar to direct the registration of the sale agreement while disregarding the order of the Civil court. The bench emphasized that during the pendency of the application before the Registrar, the aforementioned lawsuit was dismissed, thereby rendering the Registrar’s decision to order registration of the document contrary to the law.

In the present case, respondent No.3 approached the Sub-Registrar for the registration of a document, but the Sub-Registrar declined to register it. In response, respondent No.3 filed an application before the Registrar under Section 73 of the Registration Act. However, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of this application before the Registrar, the lawsuit in question was dismissed. Consequently, the court concluded that the Registrar’s decision to direct the registration of the document was in violation of the law, and the invocation of the Registrar’s jurisdiction lacked good faith, particularly in light of the Civil court’s decree.

In essence, the court held that when a lawsuit seeking specific performance is dismissed, it is unlawful for the Registrar to order the registration of the sale agreement. The Registrar’s decision must be in conformity with the law, and any invocation of the Registrar’s jurisdiction should be made in good faith, considering the existence of a decree by the Civil court.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

click here to view judgement

“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.”

 

1 … 358 359 360 361 362 … 1,672