Uncategorized Archives - Page 10 of 73

6 Jan

Excess recovery made by the Department is subject to verification: Supreme Court of India

Prime Legal

Uncategorized # Recovery, #judgement, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. M/s. Vivo Mobile India Private Ltd. & Ors.

Case No: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27106/2023

Decided on: 4^th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the scheme was between March, 2020 to August, 2020, the respondents had sought benefit or extension of the scheme only by one month, that is, September, 2020. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has recorded that the respondent(s) herein would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of excess recovery of Rs.11,00,69,010/- from the date of the excess recovery to the date of its actual refund. Learned A.S.G. pleaded that there is no excess recovery made by the Department.

Issue

Whether there is excess recovery of Rs.11,00,69,010/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the excess recovery to the date of its actual refund made by the Department?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recorded that whether there is excess recovery of Rs.11,00,69,010/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the excess recovery to the date of its actual refund made by the Department is subject to verification and in the event, there is any excess recovery, the direction of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall prevail. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

“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- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

5 Jan

Increasing the retirement age for coastal guard staff to 60 has to be reassessed by the central government: Madras High Court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Case Title: Lakshmichandra Harishchandra Sharma v Union of India and Another

Case No: W.P. Nos.415, 947, 901 and 766 of 2021

Decided on: 23^rd November, 2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Facts of the Case

The issue concerns a number of petitions that Coast Guard personnel filed contesting Rule 20(1) of the Indian Coast Guard Rules 1986’s constitutionality. The petitions also challenge a Ministry of Defence regulation that denied raising the retirement age of Coast Guard members from the present 57 years to 60 years. The petitioners contended that the Coast Guard’s 57-year-old retirement age was unwarranted, citing the Delhi High Court’s decision in Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police and Others (2019), which raised the retirement age to 60 for other Central Paramilitary Forces (CAPFs). The petitioners’ main point is that there doesn’t seem to be any logic to distinguishing officers below the rank of commandant from those above in terms of retirement age.

In response, the administration cited Article 33 of the Constitution and claimed that any law that allowed for discriminatory treatment would be upheld by the constitution. The Centre provided additional support for its position by claiming that the Coast Guard Rules were created in accordance with the authority provided by Coast Guard Act of 1978 Section 123(2)(E). The government further emphasized that the Seventh Pay Commission’s suggestion of a uniform retirement age of 60 for all CAPFs had an impact on the Delhi High Court’s ruling, noting that the Pay Commission was not contacted by the Coast Guard to request an age enhancement. The government contended that rather than imposing its opinions on the Court, it should respect the respondent’s knowledge and experience, especially when it comes to issues involving the military services.

Legal Provisions

The main sections involved in the case are Rule 20(1) of the Indian Coast Guard Rules 1986 pertaining to the retirement age of members of the Coast Guard and is at the core of the dispute. The government relies on Article 33 to argue that if any law provides for differential treatment, it would be constitutionally valid. This article empowers the Parliament to restrict or abrogate certain rights of members of the armed forces in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India. The government justifies the framing of Coast Guard Rules under Section 123(2)(E) of the Coast Guard Act.

Issues

Does Rule 20(1) of the Indian Coast Guard Rules 1986, along with the Ministry of Defense’s order refusing to enhance the retirement age of Coast Guard members to 60 years, violate constitutional principles, considering the applicability of Article 33 of the Constitution and the powers exercised under Section 123(2)(E) of the Coast Guard Act 1978?

Courts analysis and decision

The Central Government has been directed by the High Court to reconsider the decision to raise the retirement age of all Coast Guard employees from 57 to 60 years old. This decision follows the court’s reversal of a Defense Ministry directive that had denied a request for an extension of the retirement age made by Coast Guard members below the level of commandant. The court gave members the freedom to provide arguments and supporting documentation in support of their request, emphasizing the significance of reevaluating the decision. It noted that the Seventh Pay Commission had not issued any explicit directives to the Indian Coast Guard, and it emphasized the Delhi High Court’s doubts about the Center’s justifications for categorization. It also stated that a comprehensive investigation was required to ascertain whether the different retirement age is compliant with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Center’s argument supporting the age classification based on administrative and offshore duties was questioned by the High Court. The Delhi High Court’s 2019 precedent for a uniform retirement age of 60 and the Coast Guard’s resemblance to other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) were noted by the court as lacking consideration in the rejection ruling. The court emphasized that before reaching a definitive conclusion about any constitutional article violations, the Centre must carefully consider how the Coast Guard differs from other CAPFs. Ultimately, the court threw out the contested order and recommended that the Centre reevaluate the retirement age matter, considering the unique conditions of the Coast Guard and attending to the issues brought up throughout the legal process.

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view judgement

5 Jan

Custodial interogation is necessary for advocates accused of serious crimes: Bombay High court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #Bombay HC, #Forgery, #Law report, #Legal News, #murder

Title: Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav Vs The State of Maharashtra

Citation: ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3699 OF 2023

Coram: Justice SARANG V. KOTWAL

Date: 03/01/24

Facts

The Applicant, who is an Advocate, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a serious offense. The Applicant was approached by a person whose husband was arrested under IPC Section 302. The Applicant assured the release on bail for a fee of Rs.65,000.The Advocate claimed her husband was granted bail, accepted Rs. 25,000 more, handed over a sealed envelope with alleged documents, but the husband was not released. After receiving the payment, the Applicant claimed that the bail was granted, but the documents provided were incomplete. The Applicant repeated this process, even providing a fake bail order, and the person realized they were deceived, leading to the filing of the FIR. The Applicant is now anticipating arrest.

Laws Involved

Section 302 of IPC

Punishment for murder

Section 420

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Section 465

Punishment for forgery

Issues

Whether the Applicant, engage in fraudulent activities by allegedly taking money for securing bail, and deceiving the informant in connection with a criminal case?

Judgement

The accused, an advocate, has been found by the court to have committed major offenses, including violating Section 420 of the IPC, which have damaged the victim’s reputation and undermined the integrity of the legal system. The court highlights the seriousness of the crime and the necessity of questioning suspects while they are in custody in order to find possible accomplices and similar situations. Thus, as a result court rejects the application, stating that no mercy can be awarded at this time.

Written by:- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here view judgement

5 Jan

Dismissal of companies appeal in compensation case, commissioner Upholds penalty: Bombay High court.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #Agreements, #Bombay HC, #law, #Legal Report, #workmen

Commissioner upholds penalty, dismisses company’s appeal in compensation case: Bombay HC

Title: Shipping Corporation of India Limited Vs Mr. Dasu M. Kutty

Citation: FIRST APPEAL NO. 708 OF 1996

Coram: Justice M.M. SATHAYE

Date: 05/01/24

Facts

The case involves a compensation claim by Mr. Dasu M. Kutty, who worked as a seaman for the Appellant since 1958. Mr. Kutty was employed by the Appellant from 1958 until his retirement. He filed a claim for benefits for injuries caused while working, claiming in particular 1991 chest problems that required by-pass surgery and rendered him unfit to serve in the maritime industry. The claimant contended that his hard work while serving on the ship affected his pre-existing heart disease. The claim was opposed by the employer, who denied the claim of a lifelong damage and denied any hard and stressful work. The Employer Shipping Corporation of India Limited has filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging a judgment from 13.02.1996. In that decision, the company was directed to pay the deceased Claimant’s family compensation of Rs. 3,16,688/- with 6% interest from 14.07.1991. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- and costs of Rs. 1000/- were imposed. The widow and daughter of the deceased Claimant are now pursuing the case.

Laws Involved

Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

“An order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum”. This means that instead of receiving compensation in regular installments, the injured worker or their dependents can opt to receive a one-time lump sum amount.

N.M.B. Agreement

It refers to the National Maritime Board Agreement, which typically governs terms and conditions of employment for seafarers in the maritime industry, including provisions related to compensation and benefits in case of injuries or disabilities.

Issues

Whether the Claimant’s entitlement to 100% disability compensation under the N.M.B. Agreement, is sustainable?

Judgement

After reviewing, The Appellant argued that a penalty should not have been imposed, citing the absence of such provision in the N.M.B. Agreement. However, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, while not contested for jurisdiction, justified the penalty and interest under the Act due to non-payment of compensation since 1991. The judgment upheld the Commissioner’s decision, pointing to laws allowing penalties for late compensation, and the appeal was rejected without any additional costs.

Written by:- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

4 Jan

Karnataka High Court passes a judgement against BDA for violating provision under section 69 of the KTCP Act

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & anr v State of Karnataka & anr

Citation: WP No. 1678 of 2018

Dated on: 15.12.2023

Corum: Justice Suraj Govindaraj

Facts of the case

In this present case the petitioner claims to be claims ownership of a land in Ulsoor Hobli, Bengaluru of Sy. No 32 and 38 which were previously numbered as Sy. No. 65 and 66 which was initially approved as plots that could be used for residential/ commercial purpose in 1995 through comprehensive development plant 2011.

But later on, the same plots through the revised master plan 2015 which was approved in 2007 converted into lands which could be used as parks, open space, sports and play area and included burial grounds. Hence the lands which were once allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of commercial activity and residential were now changed into different reservations.

Now, that the mere reservation of land for parks and open spaces should not impede the petitioners from using the land, especially if they had obtained prior permissions. They assert that the petitioners lack a cause of action, as their rights are not adversely affected, and there is no rejected development plan. Additionally, the BDA points out that the petitioners did not raise objections during the draft Master Plan stage, preventing them from addressing the issue in the current writ petition. Lastly, the BDA emphasizes that the classification in the Revised Master Plan serves the orderly growth of Bengaluru, regardless of whether the land is acquired or not and further the petitioner further challenges provisions under section 69 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning act (KTCP ACT).

Legal Provision

This present case involves section 69 of the KTCP Act- Karnataka Town and Country Planning act which deals with the acquisition of land which was initially designated for particular purpose in master plan which lays down specific designation in terms of section 12 of the KTCP Act. In the matter of Mr. Late Jyothendra Sinhaji as sec 69 was invoked with the reference to the difference in the revised master plan with the initial plan.

Court analysis and Judgement

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and observes that the revised master implemented by the BDA to develop into parks, green space and open area and burial ground instead of commercial and residential area stands dismissed as from 26.6.2012. as the requirement of acquiring the property by way of agreement or under the LA (Land Acquisition) Act of 2013 is not predicated on any application made by the land owners for making use of their land so long as the land is not acquired by way of agreement or under the LA Act of 2013 within a period of five years from the date of designation and/or the master plan coming into force, the designation would be deemed to have lapsed.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view the judgement

1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 73