Blog Archives - Page 99 of 1711

16 Feb

Inquiry Officer’s findings are generally not interfered, still they can be challenged if they are perverse: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #investigationofficer #evidenceact #indianconstitution #supremecourt

Title: CHATRAPAL THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(s)._______ OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11975/2019)

Date of Judgment: FEBRUARY 15, 2024

Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Facts of the Case:

The present appeal before the Supreme Court of India arises from a judgment and order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 297 of 2008. The appellant, who was initially appointed on a permanent basis as Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship, was subsequently transferred and posted as a Process Server in the Nazarat of an outlying court in Baheri, District Bareilly on 24.08.2001. Upon joining the new post, the appellant found that he was being paid the remuneration of Ardly, not the appropriate salary for the position of Process Server. In 2003, the appellant made representations to various authorities, including the District Judge, regarding the discrepancy in his salary and alleged harassment by the Central Nazir demanding illegal gratification to settle his dues.

Despite the appellant’s grievances, the matter escalated when the appellant was placed under suspension by the District Judge on 21.06.2003, followed by the initiation of a departmental inquiry. The charges against the appellant included the use of inappropriate language and making false allegations against officers, as well as communicating with higher authorities without following proper channels. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges were established, leading to the appellant’s dismissal on 30.04.2007.

Subsequently, the appellant appealed the dismissal, which was dismissed by the High Court on 19.09.2007. The appellant then filed Writ Petition (C) No. 297 of 2008 before the High Court, challenging the order of dismissal. However, this petition was also dismissed, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In this appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenges the dismissal orders issued by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by both the High Court and the Administrative Judge of the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant contends that the dismissal was unjustified and that the charges against him were not proven. The appellant seeks relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that the dismissal was erroneous and should be overturned.

Laws Involved:

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
Indian Evidence Act

Issue framed by the Court:

Whether the appellant was prejudiced due to lack of access to certain documents?

Courts Judgment and Analysis:

The court’s analysis revolves around several legal points raised by both the appellant’s counsel and the counsel representing the High Court. The appellant’s counsel argued that the charges against the appellant were vague, the punishment was disproportionate to the guilt, and the appellant was prejudiced due to lack of access to certain documents. Moreover, they contended that the findings of guilt were perverse. To support these arguments, reliance was placed on precedents such as ‘Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan’ and ‘Santosh Bakshi vs. State of Punjab’.

In contrast, the counsel for the High Court contended that the charges were specific and not vague, highlighting the appellant’s history of making false allegations against senior officers.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and perusal of the case papers, the court scrutinized the charges against the appellant. The first charge involved allegations of misconduct and insubordination, including the use of inappropriate language and false accusations against officials. The court found that the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding the appellant’s statement in his application was based on a misinterpretation, leading to a perverse finding. Additionally, the court noted that the appellant did not directly make allegations of discrimination on a caste basis, as it was the Central Nazir who made such statements. The Inquiry Officer’s findings on this charge were thus deemed flawed.

Regarding the second charge, which pertained to sending representations directly to higher authorities without following the proper channel, the court observed that while this action may constitute a minor offense, termination from service was deemed excessive, especially considering examples of similar actions by other employees that did not result in termination.

The court referred to legal precedents such as Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu to emphasize principles regarding the role of appellate courts in disciplinary proceedings. It emphasized that while findings of an Inquiry Officer are generally not interfered with, they can be challenged if based on perverse findings.

In conclusion, considering the flaws in the Inquiry Officer’s findings and the disproportionate punishment imposed, the court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the termination order, reinstating the appellant with all consequential benefits.

“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- Aditi

Click here to view the judgment

16 Feb

Private agreements cannot be enforced over public policy in slum rehabilitation schemes: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # Authority, #rehabilitation, #slum, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti & Anr. Vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 1359 Of 2023

Decided on: 15.12.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The dispute arose when a developer attempted to avoid legal requirements by excluding the SRA from a lawsuit and entering into a private agreement with a minority resident group for specific towers. This private agreement, deemed invalid by the SRA, attempted to circumvent the established lottery-based system for flat allocation.

The appellants before this Court have challenged the High Court of Judicature, Bombay’s order dated 22.10.2021, which dismissed the appellants’ Writ Petition. The petition sought to overturn respondent No. 2’s order, issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant’s argued that once the Developer and the appellant society reached an agreement under the MOU, allotments of flats in towers D, E, and F should have been made accordingly, with only appellant society members receiving these flats.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The Court noted that the Lower Parel project was hampered by an internal conflict between the majority Federation in charge of it and a dissenting minority group, Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti. It was determined that the developer had broken the law when they entered into a private agreement with SSS for a specific tower development and excluded the SRA from a lawsuit. This private agreement went against the SRA’s established lottery-based allocation system, which Circular mandated. In the end, the Court affirmed the SRA’s determination to equitably distribute apartments to all qualified inhabitants, stressing the importance of openness, due process, and broad agreement in slum rehabilitation initiatives.

It held that SRA must operate in accordance with its own policies and guidelines, refraining from granting contractual or private interests the upper hand over public policy, particularly when it comes to welfare-based policies.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judgement

16 Feb

Electoral bonds to the Electoral Band: Supreme Court declares electoral bonds unconstitutional

Prime Legal

Blog #electoralbond #unconstitutional #supremecourt #indianconstitution #elections

Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.

Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2017

Date of Judgment: New Delhi; February 15, 2024

Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Mishra

Facts of the Case:

The petitioners have initiated proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, contesting the constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme, which introduced a mechanism for anonymous financial contributions to political parties. Additionally, they have challenged certain provisions of the Finance Act 2017, specifically amendments made to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, the Representation of the People Act 1951, the Income Tax Act 1961, and the Companies Act 2013.

Central to the petition is Section 31 of the RBI Act, which originally mandated that only the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) or the Central Government, authorized by the RBI Act, could draw, accept, make, or issue any bill of exchange or promissory note for payment of money to the bearer of the note or bond. However, the Finance Act amended this provision by introducing Section 31(3), granting authority to the Central Government to authorize any scheduled bank to issue electoral bonds. This significant alteration to the RBI Act forms the crux of the petitioners’ contention.

In order to grasp the significance of these legislative amendments, it is essential to contextualize them within the framework governing financial contributions to political parties. This framework primarily revolves around three key aspects: (a) contributions made by corporate entities, (b) the disclosure of information regarding contributions, and (c) the provision of income tax exemptions for donations. The amendments introduced through the Finance Act 2017, particularly in relation to electoral bonds, disrupt the existing landscape of political financing, raising concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and potential implications for the democratic process.

Given these circumstances, the appellants have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking judicial review of the Electoral Bond Scheme and the associated legislative amendments. Their petition underscores the need to uphold the principles of transparency and fairness in political funding, as enshrined in the constitutional framework, and seeks to challenge the validity of the amendments that they perceive as undermining these foundational principles.

Laws Involved:

The Finance Act 2017
The Reserve Bank of India Act 1934
The Representation of the People Act 1951
The Income Tax Act 1961
The Companies Act 2013

Issues framed by the Court:

Whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties, as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act infringes the principle of free and fair elections and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme and the amendments to Section 29C of the RPA, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act and Section 13A(b) of the IT Act are violative of the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Courts Judgment and Analysis:

The court’s analysis on various legal points in this case revolves around two primary issues: the legality of unlimited corporate funding to political parties under the amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act, and the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme and related amendments to the Representation of the People Act (RPA), Companies Act, and Income Tax Act.

Unlimited Corporate Funding (Amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act):

The court finds that the deletion of the proviso to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act, which permitted unlimited corporate contributions to political parties, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This provision allowed corporations to donate unlimited funds to political parties, potentially skewing the democratic process by giving undue influence to corporate interests. The court likely reasoned that such unlimited corporate funding undermines the principle of free and fair elections by potentially allowing wealthier corporations to exert disproportionate influence over political outcomes, thereby infringing upon the equal treatment of all citizens under Article 14.

Non-disclosure of Information under the Electoral Bond Scheme and Related Amendments:

The court finds that the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme, as well as amendments to Section 29C of the RPA, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act, and Section 13A(b) of the IT Act, violates the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. By not mandating disclosure of contributions made through electoral bonds and related mechanisms, the transparency and accountability of political funding are compromised. Citizens have a fundamental right to know the sources of funding for political parties to make informed decisions, and the non-disclosure impedes this right, undermining the democratic process.

In conclusion, the court upholds the following:

– The deletion of the proviso to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act, prohibiting unlimited corporate contributions to political parties, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

– The non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme and related amendments to the RPA, Companies Act, and IT Act infringes upon the right to information of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Therefore, the court issues directions to stop the issuance of Electoral Bonds, mandates disclosure of information on bond purchases and contributions received by political parties, and orders the return and refund of unused Electoral Bonds.

Written by- Aditi

Click here to view the judgment

15 Feb

Denial of Bail Unveils Misrepresentation, Strong Nexus to Money Laundering Charges by Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #supremecourt #judgement #mondeylaundering #JUSTICEANIRUDDHABOSE #JUSTICEBELAM.TRIVEDI

TITLE: SAUMYA CHAURASIA V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3840 OF 2023 @SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8847/2023

DECIDED ON: 14 DECEMBER 2023

CORAM: JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

Facts of the Case

Saumya Chaurasia, a government officer, faced arrest in connection with a money laundering case. Despite the rejection of her bail application by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, she appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that scheduled offences under Sections 384 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code were omitted from the chargesheet, focusing on Sections 204 and 353 of the IPC. The appellant argued that these points were brought to the High Court’s attention, though detailed arguments were allegedly not heard. An affidavit was filed, stating that relevant documents were submitted, but clarity on the chargesheet’s production was lacking. The appellant sought bail, asserting a lack of substantive evidence and no connection with the co-accused. However, the respondent-ED countered with evidence showing a strong nexus between the appellant and illicit financial transactions.

Issues Involved

Whether the scheduled offences were dropped from the charge sheet, and if so, its impact on the case. Whether the High Court erred in not considering the appellant’s arguments and documents in detail. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail due to the lack of substantive evidence and the alleged absence of a connection with the co-accused. Whether the court should exercise discretion under the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in granting bail to the appellant. Whether there was an attempt to misrepresent facts by the appellant. Whether the inconsistencies in the grounds and documents submitted with the SLP impact the merit of the appeal.

Legal Provisions

Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) defines money laundering. Section 4 of PMLA designates money laundering as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Sections 384, 120-B, 204, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code are relevant to the charges against the appellant. Section 45 of PMLA provides for the conditions for grant of bail in cases of money laundering. The first proviso to Section 45 allows for bail for women accused of money laundering, subject to certain conditions.

Court’s Observation and Analysis

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, scrutinized the appellant’s conduct, emphasizing the necessity of disclosing material facts accurately. The court disapproved of the appellant’s attempt to misrepresent facts and highlighted inconsistencies in the grounds and documents presented in the Special Leave Petition (SLP). Despite dismissing the appeal on these grounds alone, the court proceeded to evaluate its merits. Addressing the appellant’s claim regarding dropped scheduled offences, the court clarified that the final determination rests with a competent court and found no merit in the argument. The court, considering the evidence presented by the respondent-ED, rejected the plea for bail, citing a strong nexus with money laundering. Moreover, the court exercised discretion under the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, denying bail. In light of misleading statements in the appeal, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the appellant.

Written by- Komal Goswami

Click to read the Judgement

15 Feb

Dying Declaration Doubts and Witness Credibility Lead to Acquittal in High-Stakes Murder Trial: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #supremecourt #judgement #murder #witnesscreditibility #JUSTICEABHAYS.OKA #JUSTICEPANKAJMITHAL

TITLE: JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1347 OF 2011

DECIDED ON: 5 JANUARY 2024

CORAM: JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

Facts of the Case

Four individuals, namely Manja alias Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu, Gledwin alias Banti Isai, and Ajay alias Ajayya, were convicted for the murder of Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav. The incident occurred on 08.06.2007, around 08:45 pm, near Machchu Hotel in the jurisdiction of Police Station Ghamapur, Jabalpur. The accused allegedly assaulted Pappu Yadav with a knife, dagger, sickle, and kasia when he was leaving Machchu Hotel with his friends. The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the dying declaration of the deceased made orally to his brother and mother, as well as the testimony of an eyewitness, Rahul Yadav (PW-13).

Issues Involved

Whether the dying declaration made by the deceased is reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. Whether the testimony of the eyewitness, Rahul Yadav (PW-13), is credible given his criminal background and potential bias. Whether there is corroborative evidence to support the dying declaration and eyewitness testimony.

Legal Provisions

Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Punishment for murder with common intention. Principles related to the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. Consideration of eyewitness testimony and the necessity for corroboration, especially when the witness has a criminal background.

Court’s Observation and Analysis

In its analysis, the court critically evaluated the reliability of the dying declaration and the credibility of the eyewitness testimony in the case involving the murder of Pappu Yadav. Emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence for the dying declaration and considering doubts surrounding the critical injuries sustained, the court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt. The court’s decision underscored the responsibility of the appellate court to intervene when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted the cautious approach required in criminal cases, especially when key witnesses, such as the eyewitness with a criminal background, raised questions about potential bias. Ultimately, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds, prioritizing the principle of ensuring justice through a robust and credible legal process.

Written by- Komal Goswami

Click to read the judgement

1 … 97 98 99 100 101 … 1,711