Category Archives: Blog

Madras High Court

Madras HC on 21^st January 2023 said that it is not attainable To Operate Only Low Floor Buses In State, Transport Department Tells. This was seen in the matter of Ms. Vaishnavi Jayakumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu & another, Case No: WP No. 29914 of 2022. The matter was presided over by the Coram of Chief Justice T Raja & Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Institute of Road Transport on Friday informed the Madras HC that it is not technically attainable for the State Transport Undertakings to have only low-floor buses in the state.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja & Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea filed by cross-disability rights activist Vaishnavi Jayakumar against a tender notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Transport Department for procuring 1770 non-AC diesel buses with a floor height of 900mm.

Challenging the notice, the plea argues that the law permits procurement of low-floor buses with a floor height of 400mm or max height of 650mm with ramps/kneeling system/lifts for entry.

Jayakumar has argued that as early as in 2005, there were orders from the court to ensure universally available buses as per the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995. The tender notice is a blatant violation of the earlier court orders, according to the petitioner.

Urging the court to quash the tender, Jayakumar has said that buses with floor height of 900 mm are difficult to access not only by persons with disabilities but also by the elderly & pregnant women.

Pointing out the operational difficulties in procuring all buses as Low Floor buses, the Transport Department submitted that such procurement would also need infrastructure upgradation at Bus Stops & bus bays, sufficient road width, drainage of rainwater, etc, which are under the jurisdiction of Greater Chennal Corporation, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) in Chennai & various local bodies in the districts.

The court was told that even earlier, an attempt was made to operate low-floor buses, but the same could not reach positive results due to insufficient road width for turns, non-standard speed breakers, water stagnation, etc.

Further, it was submitted that during rainy season, due to water stagnation in cities, water will enter into the buses easily which will also lead to stoppage of such buses in many areas. It was also informed that the workshops currently are not equipped with servicing the low floor buses as they require modified servicing pits, special tools & equipment etc.

JUDGEMENT

The court has asked the department to get instructions on whether it is attainable to keep ramps available in the buses with floor height of 900mm, to be used whenever persons with disability are boarding the buses. The matter has been adjourned to January 24.

“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 YAKSHU JINDAL

Click here to view your judgment

The Delhi High Court passed a judgement on 9^th  February, 2023. This was seen in the case of CHITRA RAMKRISHNA v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE BAIL APPLN. 2919/2022 & CRL.M.(BAIL)1188/2022 and the case was presided over by Mr. Hon’ble Justice Jasmeet Singh

 

FACTS OF THECASE:

In this case former chief executive officer of national stock exchange (NSE) chitra ramkrishna in a money laundering case registers against her by enforcement Directorate (ED) and CBI in connection with the NSE phone trapping case

The FIR was registered against chitraramkrishna under sections 120B, 409 and 420 of IPC, sections 69B, 72, 72A of Information Technology Act, 2000, sections 20, 21, 24 and 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act and sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR on the allegations of scheduled offences. The agency had alleged that the revenue of Rs. 4.54 crores generated by ISEC for providing the services constituted “proceeds of crime‟.

JUDGEMENT

 In this case Chitra Ramakrishna was denied bail by Rouse Avenue Courts in the ED case in August last year and after that the Delhi HC  granted bail to Ramkrishna after having reserved orders in the matter on November 15.and In her bail plea, she had argued that they don’t have any  connection with brokers, and as per the investigation none of brokers had been arrested.

The court said that :

“In the present case there is no allegation that the Applicant has derived or obtained any property or proceeds of crime. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence produced before me to suggest that the Applicant has concealed, possessed, used, projected or claimed any proceeds of crime as untainted property.”

 

“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 Drishti verma

Click Here to view judgement

The Supreme Court passed a judgement on 9^th  February, 2023. This was seen in the case of   NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.Vs. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER & ORS CIVIL APPEAL No.4769 OF 2022 and he case was presided over by Mr. Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan  Kaul and Mr. Hon’ble Justice Abhays Oka

FACTS OF THECASE:

In this case  the State Government opted for a Group Insurance Scheme vide letter dated 10.02.2000 to cover its premium paying employees, who were appointed for election related activities. It appears that keeping in mind the period of the by-polls, the duration of the insurance scheme was extended from 24.05.2000 to 23.06.2000 by way of a supplementary policy.and  This incident was done during  these by-poll elections.

JUDGEMENT

The deceased who was deployed for election duty died due to sun stroke stroke while performing his duties the Patna High Court granted relief to the  wife of the deceased and court held that wife of the deceased was entitled to claim insurance coverage under the MoU by relying on the clause “death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violent and any other visible means” in the insurance policy.
The insurance company came in appeal before the Supreme Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the wife of the deceased was entitled to claim insurance coverage under the MoU by relying on the clause “death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violent and any other visible means” in the insurance policy.
The Supreme Court observed that :

“If in the aforesaid context, the policy is analysed, the cause arising from a sun stroke cannot, in our view, be included within the  parameters of the ‘Scope of Cover’ in the insurance policy defining when such insurance amount would become payable.”

“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 Drishti verma

Click Here to view judgement

 

The Bombay High Court on the 16th of January, 2023 has rejected the petition under the case of BrihanMumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (Petitioner)  Vs. Shri. Shivaji K. Shinde (Respondent). The case was presided over by Honourable Justice G.S Kulkarni and it was a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ( Writ Petition No. 283 of 2020) 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Respondent was a bus driver availing services to the petitioner. A charge-sheet dated May 4, 2010, was issued on account of an accident that occurred on April 21, 2010, while the respondent was operating a bus on route No. 33. The bus was travelling from Goregaon Bus Station to Goregaon Bus Depot. The pedestrian was struck by the bus and sustained a head injury. The pedestrian was immediately taken to the hospital by the respondent along with one other passenger who served as the only witness in this case, but was soon declared dead.

The respondent was charged with inexcusable negligence and performance of his tasks in violation of the directives and guidelines given to him. His services were also suspended from May 4, 2010. He claimed, among other things, that the bus he was driving was moving at a very moderate speed of 15 to 20 km per hour and that the pedestrian who struck the left corner of the bus was using his cellphone when he suddenly moved in front of the bus and was struck by the left side of the bus while talking on it. He stated that he had performed his duty without any sort of negligence. This was seconded by the witness in this case as well. 

Given the respondent’s hearing impairment, the Industrial Court had ordered the petitioner to offer alternative work to the applicant in light of his dismissal from the driver duties. 

JUDGEMENT

The Court stated that it was obvious that the incident was purely an accident and that the respondent did not act negligently, much less grossly so. The claim that there were circumstances in which the respondent could have prevented the accident is also unsupported by the evidence in the record. The petitioner had not established a reason to intervene with the current petition and there were no merits to the petition. Hence, the petition was accordingly denied. 

“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 SREYA MARY 

Click here to view full pdf.

 

The Bombay High Court in the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra ( Writ Petition NO. 6989 OF 2008) has declared that the written statement should have been taken into account and that the delay should have been allowed since the petitioner shouldn’t have been denied the chance to argue the merits of the claim. The proceedings were presided over by Honourable Justice Rajesh S Patil. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The writ petition was filed by the original defendants to the case, where in the City Civil Court, Mumbai had refused to condone the delay of 31 months and 16 days from the part of the plaintiffs. The defendants had used the current Writ Petition to contest the impugned order. Without taking into account the precise legal position, the City Civil Court in Bombay had denied the application for a delay pardon.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, the contested order was requested by the petitioners to be revoked and annulled.

3 main cases had been referred to by the Advocates of the said petitioners. This being, 1) Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors., reported in (2005), 2) Zolba vs. Keshao and Others reported in (2008) and 3) Raj Process Equipments Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. reported in Civil Appeal No. 8089 of 2022.

When the Court looked at the documents on file, it was clear that a written statement of fact had been affirmed within 30 days of the issuance of the summons. However, in the petitioner’s case, the written statement of fact could not have been presented in court because that is not how the City Civil Court in Bombay operates. Instead, documents are only presented across the bar once the case has been heard.

JUDGEMENT : 

The Court held that the case was of civil nature and not commercial. Written statements were in fact confirmed on January 17, 2005, as evidenced by the photocopy of the confirmed written statements that is included in the document attached to the Writ Petition. Hence there was no other reason for the Petitioners to choose not to submit the written statement to the Registry.

It was held that the petitioner shouldn’t be denied the chance to evaluate the claim’s merits and  that the Written Statement ought to have been recorded and that the delay ought to have been granted.

“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 SREYA MARY .

Click here to view full pdf.