0

The Bombay High Court quashes the rejection letter of teacher by the Education Department, directs them to grant the approval of his appointment as ‘Shikshan Sevak’.

Uncategorized

The Bombay High Court quashes the rejection letter of teacher by the Education Department, directs them to grant the approval of his appointment as ‘Shikshan Sevak’.

Title: Rajan Sahadeo Ratul v. State of Maharashtra, School Education Department

Decided on: July 3, 2023

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1321 : (2023) 4 Bom CR 298. Writ Petition No. 1423 of 2021

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE G.S. PATEL AND HON’BLE JUSTICE NEELA K. GOKHALE
Introduction

The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection letter of a teacher and directed the management to approve his appointment as employee as ‘Shikshan Sevak’. A bench consisting of Justice G.S Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale found the appointment of employee legally valid.

Facts of the Case

The 1st Petitioner is an employee of the school and the respondent is the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur region. In accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”), after a vacancy arose, the school enquired about availability of surplus candidates from the management but after receiving neither a reply nor a surplus candidate nominee for appointment, the school commenced the procedure to fill up the vacancy and the 1st Petitioner joined service. The school then submitted the required proposal to the Respondent for approval of the Petitioner’s appointment as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ on 10 January 2020. The respondent rejected the proposal on the ground that the procedure of obtaining prior approval was not followed. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner, that the Respondent failed to convey to the school that the permission for selection process cannot be granted or that it has been refused for any reason and there was no communication at all regarding availability of surplus teacher of required qualifications. It is only after expiry of more than seven months, in the absence of a response of any kind, that the Management proceeded with selection procedure. The respondent however argues that this was in contravention of Government Resolution dated 6 February 2012 which mandated a ‘No Objection’ to be taken from the State Government prior to commencing of a selection procedure for filling up any vacancy, hence respondent prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

The Court held that when the School Management informs the Education Department about a vacancy in its school seeking the latter’s permission for appointment, the Education Officer is expected to either forward names of suitable persons from the list of surplus teachers maintained by the Department or if no surplus teacher is available for absorption, permit the Management to appoint the teacher following regular appointment procedure. When the Education Officer does neither, the School Management is not expected to carry on with the vacancy awaiting a response from the Department indefinitely. The Court thus directed the Education Department to grant approval to appointments made by the Management in such cases and disburse the honorarium as per Rules. The court also held that the Petitioner is working in the school since 17 June 2019 and there has been no blemish on his performance. The Management was found to be well within its rights to commence the selection process in the absence of any response from the Respondents. The rejection letter dated 18 March 2020 was quashed and set aside. The Respondent was directed to grant the requisite approval to the appointment of the 1st Petitioner as ‘Shikshan Sevak’ from the date of his appointment and include his name in the Shalarth ID within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.

“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- Reema Nayak

Click to view judgement

0

The Bombay High Court at Goa grants bail to accused for not being a flight risk, having no criminal antecedents and after considering that the trial might take a long period

Uncategorized ,

The Bombay High Court at Goa grants bail to accused for not being a flight risk, having no criminal antecedents and after considering that the trial might take a long period

Title: Joyal Graca v. State of Goa

Decided on: July 5, 2023

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1341

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE M.S. KARNIK

Introduction

The Bombay High Court at Goa grants bail to the main accused in a murder case in bail hearing.

Facts of the Case

This is an application for bail for offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 364, 302, 201 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. There are three accused in all who have alleged to have had a fight with the deceased in a bar. It is alleged that the deceased was taken by the accused on a scooter. The dead body of the deceased was found and a murder weapon was recovered.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

The Court takes into account that the trial has commenced and 12 witnesses have been examined. However, the Court make the following observations: 1. some of the witnesses have turned hostile during the course of their examination, 2. there are no eyewitnesses to the incident, 3. the applicant has been in custody for more than 3 years and 288 days. The Court also states that considering the number of witnesses, the trial is likely to take long time to conclude. Meanwhile, there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. The Court also finds that the applicant is a permanent resident of Goa and there is nothing on record to indicate that he is flight-risk. Therefore, the court grants him bail on a bond of the sum of Rs. 25000.

“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- Reema Nayak

Click to view the judgement

0

Karnataka High Court Rules Verbal Threats Without Intent Inadequate for Section 506 IPC Charges on Criminal Intimidation

Uncategorized

Case Title: Sugurappa @ Sugurayya Swami v. The State Of Karnataka

Case NO: Criminal Petition No.201248 of 2021

Date of Order: 03-08-2023

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that just speaking certain words without the aim of alarming the complainant or influencing them to take specific actions is inadequate to classify the accused person’s actions as criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

FACTS

the petitioner argued that the complainant filed a false case against him based on a purely civil dispute. The petitioner claimed that the proceedings stemmed from a civil suit in which they had obtained a favorable injunction. They further contended that a careful examination of the entire charge-sheet revealed that the alleged offenses were not actually established.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

Firstly, the court observed that the alleged incident occurred on May 12, 2020, but the First Information Report (FIR) was filed on May 22, 2020, without any explanation provided for the delay. The court dismissed the complainant’s claim that the accused trespassed into their house on the specified date, time, and location. The court’s analysis of the evidence showed that the accused had been granted temporary relief by a magistrate in a prior case, allowing them entry into the property. Thus, the court found no initial validity in the complainant’s assertion of house trespass, as defined in Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is punishable under Section 448 of the IPC.

Regarding the allegation of criminal intimidation, the court addressed the petitioner’s action of lifting and throwing a hoe (guddali) to the ground. The court referred to Section 506 of the IPC, which outlines the criteria for criminal intimidation. It stated that for an act to qualify as criminal intimidation, the accused must threaten to harm the complainant’s person, reputation, or property with the intention of causing fear or coercing the person into performing an action they are not legally obliged to do, or refraining from a legal obligation to avoid the threatened harm.

Citing a precedent from the Supreme Court case of Manik Taneja And Another v. State Of Karnataka and Another (2015), the court held that even the elements required by Section 506 of the IPC were not established against the petitioners in the present case.

In light of these considerations, the court granted the petition.

0

Delhi High Court’s Ruling on Gold Smuggling and Prohibited Goods: Impact on Economy and Legal Consequences

Uncategorized , , , , , ,

Title:  Nidhi Kapoor and Ors. v. Principal Commissioner and Ors.

Decided on:  21st August, 2023

+  W.P.(C) 8902/2021

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

 

Introduction

In a recent case before the Delhi High Court, the intricate legal landscape surrounding gold smuggling and its ramifications on the economy came under scrutiny. The court’s verdict shed light on the burden of proof, the definition of prohibited goods, and the extensive economic and legal consequences associated with such smuggling activities.

Facts

The case centered around an individual apprehended while attempting to smuggle a substantial quantity of gold into India. The individual contended that the gold was received as a gift, while authorities suspected illicit smuggling activities. Central to the case were questions regarding whether gold smuggling constituted prohibited goods and the allocation of the burden of proof in such cases.

Analysis

  1. Economic Implications and Legal Ramifications: The court acknowledged the ripple effect of gold smuggling on India’s economy, encompassing alarming levels of money laundering, black money generation, and potential connections to unlawful activities, including financing terrorism. This emphasis underscored the gravity of the offense and its broader implications.
  2. Burden of Proof: The court delved into the legal principle enshrined in Section 123 of the Customs Act, wherein the onus to establish that seized goods are not smuggled rests upon the person from whom the goods were confiscated or the individual claiming ownership.
  3. Precedent: The court addressed a plea based on a prior incident involving a passenger who was apprehended with gold but subsequently released. The court dismissed the relevance of this precedent, emphasizing that a single instance did not constitute a binding legal basis.
  4. Gift Claim Scrutiny: The petitioner argued that the gold in question was a gift. However, the court ruled that the presented gift deed lacked the essential elements of acceptance and legal validity, rendering it inadequate to prove ownership.
  5. Definition of Prohibited Goods: The court engaged in an insightful analysis of the definition of “prohibited goods” outlined in Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. It clarified that this definition encompassed goods subject to import/export prohibition and extended to goods imported against prescribed conditions.
  6. Import Policy and Constraints: The court referenced the government’s prerogative to restrict the export and import of goods. A circular was cited, underscoring that the import of gold was limited to licensed individuals and public notices.
  7. Section 111 of Customs Act: The court examined Section 111 of the Customs Act, a pivotal provision addressing dutiable or prohibited goods, including those imported in contravention of conditions or those that have been concealed.
  8. Interpretation of “Prohibited Goods”: The court’s inference that goods imported against stipulated conditions fall within the ambit of “prohibited goods” aligned with the legislative intent to encompass goods adhering to import conditions.
  9. Adjudging Officer’s Discretion: The court held that an infringement of import conditions fell within the realm of Section 2(33), thereby conferring the Adjudging Officer with discretionary authority over the release or redemption of such goods.

Conclusion

 Through its detailed examination of gold smuggling, prohibited goods, and the evidentiary burden, the Delhi High Court’s ruling enriched our comprehension of the legal complexities at play. The judgment underscored the interconnectedness of smuggling, economic well-being, and legal obligations. By offering a comprehensive analysis, the court’s decision navigated through the intricate web of legal nuances, contributing to a clearer understanding of the legal framework encompassing gold smuggling and its repercussions on both the economy and the legal system.

“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- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgment

0

The Madras High Court emphasized that the quality of evidence was more important than the quantity in a case involving financial fraud

Uncategorized

 

Dated: 22.08.2023

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.O.P.No.30022 of 2022

 

Introduction:

The case of State v. K. Mohanraj and Others revolves around a Criminal Original Petition (Crl.O.P) filed by the State, represented by the Inspector of Police of the Special Police Establishment (CBI), Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Chennai. The petitioner seeks the expunction of certain remarks made by the trial court in its judgment dated 26.08.2012 in connection with Case No. 9 of 2011. The primary concern is the trial court’s observations about the examination of depositors and its direction to the CBI.

Background:

The case involves multiple accused persons, including K. Mohanraj, K. Kathiravan (now deceased), Kamalavalli, and several companies, represented by the aforementioned individuals. The accused were charged with offences related to a significant financial scam where deposits were collected from numerous individuals.

Court Proceedings:

The CBI, responsible for investigating the case, has approached the High Court to seek the expunction of remarks made by the trial court in its judgment. The remarks primarily revolve around the trial court’s criticism of the CBI for not examining all the depositors and its direction to file fresh complaints for prosecution.

Contentions:

The learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the CBI argued that the trial court’s observation regarding the examination of all 58,571 depositors was unwarranted. The prosecutor explained that the investigation spanned several years, and the trial court had examined over a thousand witnesses and numerous documents. It was emphasized that the First Information Report (FIR) had set the criminal law into motion, leading to the prosecution of the accused. The prosecutor asserted that the genuineness of the depositors could be determined by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (TNPID Act). The learned prosecutor further argued that the trial court’s direction to file fresh FIRs for new complaints was unnecessary.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

The High Court, after careful examination of the trial court’s judgment and relevant legal provisions, sided with the CBI’s argument. The court opined that the trial court’s condemnation of the CBI for not examining all the depositors was unwarranted and unnecessary. It was held that the TNPID Act empowered the competent authority, such as the District Revenue Officer (DRO), to determine the claims of genuine depositors and distribute the funds recovered from the accused. The court emphasized that the quality of evidence was more important than the quantity and that the trial court’s remarks regarding the examination of all depositors were superfluous and could lead to unnecessary delays.

The High Court further stated that the trial court’s direction to file fresh FIRs for new complaints was not required. The court clarified that the guilt of the accused had already been established through judicial proceedings, and any further claims from depositors could be addressed through the competent authority under the TNPID Act. The court noted that previous petitions seeking investigation and examination of depositors had been dismissed by the High Court, indicating that the judicial system did not require the examination of all depositors as a prerequisite for determining their claims.

Conclusion:

The case of State v. K. Mohanraj and Others highlights the balance between judicial efficiency and ensuring justice for victims in complex financial scams. The High Court’s decision to allow the CBI’s plea for expunction of certain remarks underscores the importance of focusing on the legal framework provided by statutes like the TNPID Act. The judgment emphasizes that the determination of genuine claims of depositors is the responsibility of competent authorities rather than the criminal courts. The case also establishes that judicial finality has been attained regarding the guilt of the accused, making the examination of all depositors for prosecution unnecessary. Overall, the judgment contributes to streamlining the legal process in cases of financial fraud, ensuring that justice is served efficiently while upholding the principles of fairness and due process.

“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- Shreeya S Shekar

Click here to view judgement

1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 73