0

Whoever maliciously causes energy to be wasted or, with intent to cut off the supply of energy, cuts shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine: High Court Of New Delhi

Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-BSES-RPL to install the new electricity connection for the to lift and stilt parking area of the property, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a Single bench judge HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, in the matter REENU MALHOTRA V. STATE OF DELHI NCT AND ORS dealt with an issue mentioned above.

In this case the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the electricity meter has been sanctioned, however, the same has not been installed for servicing the lift and the common areas, But according to the Learned counsel appearing for BSES-RPL under instructions, submitted that he has no objection to installation of the electricity meter, however, objection was being raised by other co-owners of the property.

Meanwhile Learned counsels appearing for respondent no. 4 and 5 submitted that there are civil disputes pending inter-se the parties and petitioner is seeking to have rights established in the property by way of installation of an electricity meter, and also there are  no threat of disconnection of the said supply.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submited that the electricity is being provided from a meter installed at the second floor, which is in possession of respondent no. 6, who does not even reside therein.

Later in view of the fact that today there is no dispute that the lift and common areas are being serviced by an electricity connection, though W.P.(C) 2356/2021 3 in the name of respondent no. 6, the grievance of the petitioner is premature, It was mentioned that the BSES-RPL would install the electricity connection for the lift and common areas.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it was of the opinion that- “It was further clarified that grant of the electricity connection, if any, to the petitioner would not amount to accepting or acknowledging the right of the petitioner to the subject property and the same would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and would have no bearing on the civil suits pending between the parties. The petition is accordingly disposed in the above terms”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment reviewed by: 

 

0

In matrimonial cases, the convenience of the wife is the dominating factor for justifying transfer of a matter.

There is no straight-jacket formula that can be adopted in order to determine the transfer proceedings. It is not a mandatory rule that the transfer applications are always to be transferred for the asking of the wife, but at the same time, the wife, in situations where she is disadvantaged on recognized parameters, for the sake of equity, her interests are to be safeguarded. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Justice Vivek Varma in the matter of Smt. Garima Tripathi vs Suyash Sharma [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. – 206 of 2021].

The facts of the case were that both the parties were married according to the Hindu rites on 02.06.2017. They both have turned into an estranged couple. The opposite party has filed a petition under Section 10 read with Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the applicant. 

The Hon’ble High Court held that the expenditure involved in traveling to Kanpur from Allahabad is not very relevant, as that can always be compensated by directing the husband to pay for the wife’s travel. However, in the instant case, the husband is already willing to pay the traveling cost, but the applicant-wife has no one in her family to escort her on the journey.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court referred to the case of Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1374, and Fatema Vs. Jafri Syed Husain (Parvez), AIR 2009 SC 1773 wherein the court observed  “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record and considering the fact that the distance between Mumbai, Maharashtra, and Indore, Madhya Pradesh is about 900 km and also considering the fact that the petitioner wife has no one in her family to escort her during her journey from Mumbai to Indore, we feel it proper to transfer the case from Family Court of Indore, Madhya Pradesh to Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. Accordingly, the case being Petition No. 83 of 2006 stands transferred from Family Court of Indore, Madhya Pradesh to Family Court of Bandra at Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Finally, the Hon’ble High court allowed the present transfer application.

Click Here To Read The Judgment.

Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur

0

The Acts and Omission of the Opposite Party in failure to complete the Project amounts to Deficiency in Service & Unfair Trade Practice: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The OP had promised the Complainant that he is a capable developer and would deliver a fully constructed Flat within two years. However, the OP failed to do so even after the parties entered into sale and construction agreements. Excuses of procedural delay in receiving permissions were given. It should be noted that the project is still incomplete. Thus, the Commission was right in holding the acts of the OP as using unfair trade practices and providing a deficient service to the Complainant. This was observed in the matter of D. Vijay Krishna v. M/s G.R. Promoters, [CC/564/2019] presented before the Hon’ble Presiding Member Mr. Ravishankar and Member Mrs. Sunita Channabasappa.

The Complainant alleged deficiency of service and prayed for a compensation of Rs. 56,07,900 with interest from the OP. The delay in possession also made the complainant devoid of facilities such as the swimming pool, garden and other such amenities; but has been directed to pay the electricity charges. Further, the OP began avoiding contact with the complainant, was always unavailable in their office and that is why the Complainant resorted to take up legal action.

It was observed that failure of OP in delivering the flat reduced the market value of the unit, this couple with the fact that complainant was also incurring electricity charges, was putting the complainant at a great disadvantage. The Contract between the parties also stipulates a penalty of Rs 15,000/- per month at present by the OP.  The OP was absent for the proceedings, even though he received notice. Thus, the State Commission opined the following, “We have perused the documents. The claim of the complainant is that in spite of payments and request, the Opposite Party failed to deliver the possession of the Flat to the complainant and after receiving the Flat price and as per the notice dated:16.09.2019 and 23.09.2019, the Opposite Party has not refunded the amount to the complainant till today, has to be believed and accepted. Moreover, in spite of service of notice, from this Commission, the Opposite Party was not appeared before the Commission. Hence, Opposite Party has been placed as Ex-parte and thereby the Opposite Party has accepted the averments and allegations made by the complainant. Taking into consideration of facts and evidence on record and discussion made here, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party has been proved.”

Click Here to Read the Judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar

0

Pursuing Remedies in a Malafide Manner is Gross Abuse of Process of Law: Competition Commission of India

The Appellant had engaged in a blatant misconduct by exploiting the regulatory process; requesting that the final order issued by CCI under Section 26(2) of the Act, upheld by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court be revisited. This was observed in the matter of In Re: Major Pankaj Rai and NIIT Ltd, [C. No. 47 of 2017] With Pankaj Gupta and NIIT Ltd. [C. No. 48 of 2017] With Shri. Lakshmi Reddy Eddula and NIIT Ltd. [ C. No. 49 of 2017] before Hon’ble Chairperson Ashok Kumar Gupta and Member Sangeeta Verma.

The brief facts of the case are as follows: the CCI passed an order u/s 26(2) of the Act and found that the provisions of the Act were not in violation. Mr. Pankaj then challenged the decision through Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad. It was dismissed as the order should have been challenged before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Dissatisfied, he went for an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed. Yet, he filed a review petition before the High Court, in order to expedite the same, he filed a writ petition before the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Even this was dismissed, and the review petition pending before the High Court was withdrawn by the Appellant.

In his application to the Commission for condonation of delay, he falsely stated that the review petition had been “withdrawn with the liberty to approach NCLAT.” An appeal to the NCLAT was made after 730 days. It was dismissed, and the NCLAT noted that the Appellant was stubborn and continued pursuing the Constitutional Courts when he was asked to approach the NCLAT, thus it was not a ‘sufficient cause’ for appeal. Further, it was barred by limitation and the appellant has himself to blame for any kind of injustice caused to him. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court, which reiterated the same and opined that the “appellant persisted with a manifestly misconceived remedy…….and should have filed an appeal within 60 days but did it over a delay of 700 days”. He then resorted to a review petition which also stood dismissed.

Therefore, the CCI held that, “it is manifestly evident that Major Pankaj Rai was not pursuing his remedies in a bona fide manner. As previously noted, the Commission passed a final order under Section 26(2) of the Act closing the matter on 28.11.2017. The statutory appeals filed thereagainst first before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal and subsequently before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stand dismissed, as noted supra. In these circumstances, filing of the instant application seeking review/ recall of the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Commission which has attained finality, is gross abuse of the process of law. The Commission has also taken a serious note of the false averment made by Major Pankaj Rai in the application”.

Click Here to Read the Order

Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar

0

The Auction-purchaser may never claim a refund of the auction money in face of a valid sale certificate: Allahabad High Court.

The burden lies on the petitioner to prove on the basis of firm pleadings and cogent evidence that the respondent bank has meticulously concealed and misrepresented any material facts relating to the true value and possession of the over the secured asset. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble justice Naheed Ara Moonis & Hon’ble Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh in the matter of  Anshu Agrawal vs  State of U.P. and Anr[WRIT – C No. – 169 of 2021].

The facts leading to the present writ petition was that a property was been auctioned by the respondent bank which the petitioner purchased by bidding the highest amount in the bidding process. It was the allegation of the petitioner that, three years and nine months have passed since the bid process was completed but still the respondent bank has not handed over the physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner which he has lawfully purchased in the bidding.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no contention as to the fact that the petitioner has purchased secured asset lawfully. But, the respondent bank has full right to secure the possession of the asset even after the sale deed is executed.

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that “Under Rule 9(6) of the Rules, upon payment of the entire bid amount and upon confirmation of the sale, a Certificate of Sale is issued in the Form prescribed in Appendix V to the Rules. There is no provision of law as may allow for cancellation of that Certificate, either under the Act or the Rules. Thus, in face of such Certificate of Sale, the petitioner may never claim any entitlement to refund of the bid money.

Finally, the writ petition was disposed of giving the following direction “the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent-bank shall forthwith file a proper application before the ADM (Finance & Revenue), respondent no. 3 along with a copy of this order seeking actual physical possession over the secured asset/property in question namely House No. 8/335, Khajuri, Shivpur, District Varanasi. Such application may be filed not later than two weeks from today.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur

1 59 60 61 62 63 70