Uncategorized Archives - Page 5 of 72

23 Jan

SEBI to continue investigation on volatility of Adani shares: SC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: Vishal Tiwari v UOI

Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 162 of 2023

Dated on: 3.1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

Facts of the case

In this present case the writ petition was filed by a bunch of petitioners before the supreme court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution – To seek enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The petition raised concern over the decrease in the number of investors volatility and wealth in the present share market due to fall in the share prices of the Adani Group companies. It was alleged that the Adani group manipulated their share price and violated the SEBI regulations and provisions of securities legislation.

In this contention, the petitioners contended that the SEBI overlooked upon the securities and exchange in India and failed to conduct a verified investigation into the market manipulation by the Adani Groups. Due to the mishandling of SEBI’s investigation the petitioners urged the transform of case to special investigation team or to an alternate agency.

Additionally, the petitioners have also raised concerns to the Supreme court about the composition of the opinion of expert committee in this matter. They alleged that certain members of this expert committee have a conflict of interest and may be predisposed to bias, thereby questioning the impartiality in the proceeding. Their claim also emphasis on the importance of the unbiased and objective evaluation of the allegation made against the Adani group.

Legal Provision

In the present case the petitioners filed a writ in the supreme court under the article 32 of the Indian constitution Article 32 of the Constitution: This article grants the right to constitutional remedies to the citizens of India, allowing them to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

Issues

1.Whether there was a regulatory failure by SEBI?

2.Whether the members of the Expert Committee had a conflict of interest?

3.What are the recommendations of the Expert Committee?

Court analysis and Judgement

The hon’ble court after analysing the merits of the case came to the conclusion that the SEBI did not fail in following the regulatory procedure and it acted promptly in conducting the investigation and took up appropriate actions and the court ordered for a restrictive time frame for the SEBI to complete its investigation and not extend it indefinitely. The court also observed that it cannot transfer the investigation from SEBI to another agency or a special investigation team as there is no strong evidence indicating that SEBI has portrayed inadequacy or bias in the investigation. The allegation against the expert committee and their conflict of interest is unsubstantiated and the court suggests to the government of India and SEBI to consider the suggestions made by the expert committee. Lastly the court disposed off the petition.

“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- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view judgement

19 Jan

SC Quashes prosecution charges on public servants in alleged forgery case

Prime Legal

Blog, Uncategorized

Title: SHADAKSHARI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024

Dated on: 17.1.2004

Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Facts of the case

Shadakshari, the appellant, filed a complaint alleging that Mallikarjuna (defendant No. 2) and that respondent No.2 and another were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree of the original successor of land of the appellant etc. for illegal gain. The said first information was received and registered by Haleebedu Police Station, Belur an additional party had illegally created fictitious property papers, such as family trees for their own personal benefit. The Haleebedu Police Station in Belur filed the complaint, citing many provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In Criminal Appeal No. the Supreme Court of India handed down a major ruling concerning Shadakshari, the appellant, and the State of Karnataka & Another. The issue concerns the quashing of a chargesheet and complaint that Shadakshari filed against Mallikarjuna, a Karnataka village accountant, alleging irregularities in the creation of false property papers.

Legal Provision

Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 482 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a provision that empowers the High Court to quash any criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR if it finds that it is an abuse of the process of law or that the ends of justice require it. It is a discretionary power that has to be exercised with caution and care by the High Court. High Court, in its initial order dated 05.01.2018, acknowledged the serious allegations against respondent No.2 but refrained from interference, citing the need for a proper investigation. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed, leading respondent No.2 to approach the High Court again.

Issue

The main point of contention in this legal dispute is whether Section 197 Cr.PC. sanction is required in order to prosecute a public worker who is alleged to have committed crimes while performing official responsibilities. But the Respondent No. 2, a village accountant, requested immunity from prosecution, arguing that criminal proceedings are barred by the competent authority’s denial of sanction.

Court analysis and judgement

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 197 Cr. PC, stressing that the acts covered by it are only those carried out in the course of carrying out official responsibilities. Citing prior decisions, the court made it clear that Section 197 does not protect every action or inaction by a public worker, highlighting the requirement for a plausible link between the claimed behaviour and official duty and based only on the refusal of sanction, the court found that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint and chargesheet. It remitted the case for trial, ruling that the creation of false papers might not be regarded as an official obligation. The ruling makes it clear that a public worker is not always immune from prosecution just because they choose not to accept a reprimand and allowed the said appeal and ordered for the HC order to be set aside.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view judgment

16 Jan

Defence representative for a workman is not permissible under inquiry proceedings : Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #advocates, #bombayhc, #labourlaw, #law, #legalnews

Lawyer shows the scales of justice in hand on a blurred background.

TITLE : Ajit Bhagwan Sawant V M/s Parveen Industries Pvt Ltd.

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V Marne

DATE : 8^th January 2024

CITATION : WP No. 11801 Of 2023

FACTS

The primary issue in the petition is about right of a workman to avail services of a legal practitioners to defend himself in the inquiry process by the labor officer. The appeal is on the basis of the industrial court rejecting the application for permission to defend the workman. The petitioner is working in the defendant company and has been subjected to domestic inquiry. The inquiry officer is a person practicing law and is a qualified advocate. The petitioner claim that the inquiry officer hurried the proceeding without granting enough opportunity to defend him. The petitioner had filed for an interim application under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

LAWS INVOLVED

Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1959 gives the power to another workman or trade union member to defend a workman under enquiry.

Section 21 of the MRTU and PULP act, no workman shall be allowed to appear or act or allowed to be represented in any proceedings relating to unfair labour practices.

ISSUES

Whether the employee can be permitted to engage services of a legal practitioner as a defence representative?

JUDGEMENT

Under the Model Standing Orders imposes a restriction on the right of the workman to choose his defence representative. The court held that the employer has the right to impose such restriction. Further, it was held that as per the provisions of Clause 25 of the Model Standing Orders the defence representative can only be a workman working in the same department or an office-bearer of trade union of which he is a member.

The advocate is not appointed by the company and not an employee of the respondent company.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

16 Jan

Appeal against acquittal denied in a cheque dishonour case : Kerala HC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: SASIDHARAN A v STATE OF KERLA

Citation: CRL.A NO. 2489 OF 2006

Dated on: 9.1.2024

Corum: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

Facts of the case

In this present case the disagreement over a cheque dishonour that is covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is at the centre of the case of Sasidharan A. versus Vijayan Unnithan. The complainant, Sasidharan A, claims that a cheque dated December 23, 2003 was meant to cover Vijayan Unnithan’s obligation of Rs. 50 thousand. But when the check was presented, it bounced, which prompted legal proceedings. Sasidharan A. sent Vijayan Unnithan a demand notice, but the alleged amount went unmet, starting a legal dispute and subsequently the accused Unnithan was acquitted by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Undeterred Shashidharan chose to appeal the acquittal aiming to overturn the lower court’s decision.

Legal Provision

This is a case of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Section 138 provides that anu person found guilty of the offence of dishonour of cheque shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment of aa term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque or with both. Additionally, court referring to various precedents. In the present case the petitioner too was charged with section 138 of the NI act for dishonouring cheque

Court Analysis and Judgement

The court in this present matter held that the power of the trial court are as wide as that of the apex courts and every decision made by the trial court must not be interfered with. The trial court has equal power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought by the parties and come to the conclusion by the facts established and the on the law relating. So as far as the law stands the view of the trial court can be said to be reasonably formed, regardless of weather the appellant court aggress with the same or not the view of the trial court can not be interdicted. The appellant court also held that the findings of the trial court in acquittal of the respondent is valid and must not be interfered with and dismissed the said petition.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view judgement

15 Jan

Apprehension of committing crime can’t be ground to cancel anticipatory bail : Punjab HC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: Indraj v State of Haryana

Citation: Crl. Misc No. 1666 of 2024

Dated on: 12.1.2024

Corum: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Facts of the case

In the present case the petitioner has filed a petition under section 439(2) read with 482 of CrPC for cancelation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent. The respondent (Indraj) was involved for disclosure of the statements made by one accused namely Gopi Shyam. Thereafter, another accused namely Pushpendar.also made disclosure statement and indicated the involvement of the respondents in the alleged occurrence. The investigating officer has filled reply and pleaded although the mobile phone required in the investigation has been recovered from the respondent however, the respondent is not cooperating with the investigation.

The prayer for cancelation of anticipatory bail has been made on the ground that there is no data regarding conversation of the respondent with his accomplices and it will take time to retrieve the data through the forensic lab, ass such by that time the accused may commit other crimes of similar nature as he was earlier involved in FIR registered in various sections of IPC.

Legal Provision:

The FIR against petitioner was challenged under The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the official criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code that covers a wide range of offenses, including those related to public order, decency, morality, and property. Here are the sections you asked for:

Section 148: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.
Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object.
Section 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
Section 224: Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension.
Section 302: Punishment for murder.
Section 307: Attempt to murder.
Section 395: Punishment for dacoity.

Along with section 25 of the arms act at police station which states that any person arrested under any arms or ammunition seized under the arms act by a person not being magistrate or a police officer shall be delivered without delay to the officer in charge of the nearest police station.

Court analysis and Judgement

The trial law that while excessing the power of judicial review, the scope of interference in an order granting bail is narrow. However, the court said that they must maintain an obligation to ensure that a fine balance is maintained between the precious right of the accused enshrined under article 21 of the constitution of India and the rights of the victim. The court looking into the merits of the case and considering various precedents dismissed the writ.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view Judgement

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 72