0

Doctrine Of Forum Conveniens Is To Be Invoked To Determine The Most Appropriate Forum For Adjudication Of A Dispute: High Court Of Delhi

Title: Riddhima Singh V Central Board Of Secondary Education & Ors.

Citation: LPA 729/2023

Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice And Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Decided On: 01.11.2023

Introduction:

The present LPA arises out of judgement dated 12.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8383/2023 whereby the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein on grounds of forum non-conveniens without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Facts:

Appellant was a student in Respondent School (the „Respondent School‟). However, on 02.04.2018, the Appellant‟s father received a message from the Respondent School that due to non-payment of fees for the academic year 2017-2018, the Appellant was debarred from attending the Respondent School. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred W.P.(C) 6007/2019 (the „First Writ Petition‟) before this Court seeking issuance of directions against Respondent No. 1 („CBSE‟) to permit the Appellant to appear for Class X and Class XII examinations. During the pendency of the aforenoted writ proceedings, this Court, through interlocutory orders, directed the Respondent School to readmit the Appellant and directed the school to conduct Grade VII and Grade VIII examinations for the benefit of the Appellant. Both the examinations were conducted by the Respondent School and was cleared by the Appellant. It is pertinent to note that the Grade VIII examinations were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vide judgement dated 04.06.2021, the First Writ Petition was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge on grounds that this Court was not the most appropriate forum to adjudicate the dispute. The Court considered that the Appellant was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and that the Respondent School was also located in Uttar Pradesh. As the grievances of the Appellant primarily pertained to the Respondent School, the Court held that the mere inclusion of CBSE as a respondent was not sufficient to enable this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved the Appellant preferred a review petition against this judgement which was also dismissed with costs of INR 30,000 imposed on the Appellant.

Subsequent to the events of the First Writ Petition, the Appellant preferred the underlying writ petition seeking compensation from CBSE for alleged “intentional harassment, mental trauma of holding back the Petitioner in Class VII for two academic years in violation of RTE Act.” Without adjudicating on the merits of the matter, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of non-conveniens, noting that the Appellant has attempted to found territorial jurisdiction in Delhi merely because CBSE is headquartered in Delhi.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Ld. Single Judge erred in not considering that Clause 18.3.2 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws explicitly states that the legal jurisdiction for suits filed against the CBSE shall be the Union Territory of Delhi.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The principle emerging from Shristi Udaipur is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In essence, the basis of the Appellant‟s claim for compensation is the loss of an academic year due a delay in examinations for Grade VIII. As the responsibility for conducting the examinations fell on the Respondent School, it is plain that the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondent School is located. Moreover, it must also be noted that the Appellant is a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, on a holistic examination of these circumstances, as the Appellant has failed to produce any material establishing that the grievance caused to her is directly attributable to the actions of the CBSE.

doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice. Therefore, this Clause cannot be read in a matter that would permit all cases filed against the CBSE, regardless of the existence of a more appropriate forum, to be adjudicated in the Union Territory of Delhi; the existence of such a clause cannot exempt Courts from invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens especially in cases like the present where no direct actions of the CBSE have been impugned by the Appellant. So the court did not find any eason to interfere with the Impugned Judgement. Accordingly, the present LPA was 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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Right to live life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to prisoners too: Kerala High Court permits two perionsers to attend offline college

CASE NAME: PATTAKKA SURESH BABU V STATE OF KERALA

CASE NUMBER: RL.M.APPL.NO.3/2023 IN CRL.A NO.740 OF 2018

DATE: 3.11.2023

CORAM: A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ

Introduction

In a recent judgement, the Kerala High Court allowed two prisoners serving life sentences to attend offline college and pursue higher studies. The court decided that the right to life wiht dignity is preserved not only for other citizens but prisoners too.

Facts of the case
In the case at hand, two life convicts, convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, in two different cases have sought suspension of the execution of their sentence and release on bail to pursue higher studies. They invoked Section 389(!) of the CrPC.
Both prisoners had written entrance for LLB courses at KMCT Law college and secured admission. In previous orders, the court guided college authorities to complete the admission through online mode. The university authority stated that onlune mode for LLB courses was prohibited.
The court delves into an analysis of the Right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and goes on to extend this right to prisoners,
The court passed orders permitting both appellants to attend these courses offline, and instructed police superintendent to make necessary arrangements. It is acknowledged that according to UGC guidelines, online mode for LLB courses is prohibited. And further, the court recognises the rights of the prisoners safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution, and extends remedies accordingly.

“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: Radhika Shekhawat

0

Three factors to be considered to identify a well known mark of a comapny: Delhi High Court lays down test and grants recognition to New Balance Inc.

CASE NAME: NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS INC. V NEW BALANCE IMMMIGRATION PRIVATE LIMITED
CASE NUMBER: CS(COMM) 444/2022 & I.A. 11940/2023
DATE: 2.11.2023
CORAM: PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J
Introduction
The Delhi High Court laid down a three step method of identifying whether a mark is unique to a company, and if it can be granted legal recognition as a well known mark. This judgment review explains what the three steps as per the HC are
Facts of the case:
The appellant, New Balance Inc., a US based athletics company has filed for injunction and damages against New Balance Immigration private limited for misuse of their marks, and are seeking protection of “New Balance” and “NB”. These marks have been in use since 1987.
The court laid down a 3 factor test for identification of a well known mark of a company, and took into consideration frequency of use, geographical extent of its advertisement, and the knowledge and recognition of the same.
After a detailed analysis of the same and comparison of the two marks used by the parties involved, the court concluded that New Balance inc., the US based company, can be granted legal recognition of their mark as well known marks and hence protected under Intellectual Property Rights.
“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: Radhika Shekhawat

 

0

Discretionary powers of lending institutions not to be interfered with arbitrarily: Kerala High Court dismisses petition seeking restructuring of loan

CASE NAME: BINOY PAULOSE V. UNION OF INDIA CASE NO: WP(C) NO. 11939 OF 2023
DATE: 3.11.2023
CORAM: K. BABU, J
Introduction:
The Kerala High Court in its recent judgement clarified that it is unnecessary and uncalled for the courts to interfere with lending institution’s discretionary powers when they are lending to individuals or institutions alike. The courts only come in between when there is a violation of the discretionary powers alloted to lenders, not when they are merely put to use.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner in this case is the proprietor of Darshana Cinema Complex in Ernakulam, who availed a loan from the South India Bank for renovation of the theater. The petitioners defaulted in repayment of the loan availed,
Upon, default, the bank issued a noticed against the petitioner under Section 13[2] of SARFEASI act. The petitioner requested a restructuring of the loan, which was later denied by the bank as it was neither commercially viable nor in accordance with the MSME guidelines.
The court in this case came to the conclusion that the job of lending institutions is, undeniably, leaning. It would be overstepping by the courts if they began interfereing with the discretionary powers legislation provides to banks when lending. The petitioner’s appeal was quashed on the basis that it lacked merits.
“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: Radhika Shekhawat

blob:https://web.whatsapp.com/5eef197a-a455-4872-8f69-b6b1ef952115

0

Do not acquire poor man’s land on mere speculation of it being a National Monument: Karnataka High Court quashes notifcation

CASE NAME: Nidasheshi Veeranna v Gali Prakash 

CASE NO.: WP NO.7954 OF 2007

DATE: 11.10.2023 

CORAM: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGAD, J

Intorduction 

The Karnataka High Court has expressed disagreement with government authorities on their arbitrary and speculative methods of acquiring small scale farmer’s land.

Facts of the case

The petitioners are small scale farmers residing near the area of Hampi, they have approached the court praying that the arbitrary acquisition of their land be stopped immediately. The advocates for the petitioners argued that respondent No.5 had given no particular evidence, and neither was there any excavation done to prove the historic monument’s presence. The respondents merely ordered acquisition on speculative basis, and the petitioners being small scale farmers were gravely aggrieved by the same

Court’s decision:

The honourable Justice Mr.Sachin Shankar Magad, after listening to the matter, decided that the acquisition was infact arbitrary and that the respondents, under the garb of “historical preservation”, have abused their position of authority, putting the farmers’ livelihood in jeopardy.

“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: Radhika Shekhawat 

1 14 15 16 17 18 72