0

Release of the vehicle of petitioner after due identification of ownership of the vehicle: High Court of Patna

Uncategorized

Release of the vehicle of petitioner after due identification of ownership of the vehicle on production of ownership and registration papers was upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR in the case of Aditya Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1443 of 2022) on 02-03-2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondent authorities to release the seized Duster car of Renault Company, bearing registration no. JH10BN 5219 in favour of owner/petitioner, which has been seized in connection with Kudra P.S. Case No. 348 of 2021 pending for trial in the Court of Special Judge Excise, Kaimur at Bhabua.

Allegation is of recovery of 180 ml. illicit liquor from a car wherein three persons were sitting. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the seized car and said car was not being driven by the petitioner rather the same was being driven by one Akash Verma who was relative of the petitioner.

In view of facts and circumstances, court held that concerned District Magistrate/Confiscating Authority is directed to provisionally release the vehicle of petitioner after due identification of ownership of the vehicle on production of ownership and registration papers with respect to vehicle in question in his name with two sureties (one local) to the extent of the value of the vehicle as indicated in the insurance document.

The Court observed “The petitioner while submitting the sureties shall also furnish the following affidavits/undertakings: (i) That the petitioner shall not indulge in creating any third party right or interest in respect of the vehicle during the pendency of the confiscation proceeding and shall not alienate the vehicle during this period. (ii) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to produce the vehicle before the confiscating authority as and when required. (iii) Prior to release of the vehicle, a Panchanama would be prepared wherein the photograph of the vehicle shall be taken and will be certified by the petitioner and same shall be kept on record so that in future if so required, it may be used as a secondary evidence. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking not to challenge the said Panchanama.”

Click here to read the Judgement

Written by- Riya Singh, Legal Intern, Prime Legal

 

0

Parties should be watchful in pursuing  their rights and remedies: High Court of Delhi

Uncategorized

Parties should be watchful in pursuing  their rights and remedies: High Court of Delhi

Appellant seeks enhancement of the awarded amount as compensation for injuries in an accident on 03.10.2006. Earlier she had been awarded with the compensation but has filed again on 02.07.2020 with a delay of 3329 days. And the appeal was dismissed by Delhi High Court through the learned bench led by the Honorable  MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA in the case of Ritu Sharma vs. Union of India & ANR (CM APPL.30154-55/2021) on 25.02.2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had approached a counsel for filing an appeal for enhancement of her compensation amount of the accident but the counsel had always deceived the appellant and instead of filing an appeal he filed a caveat and lied to appellant  . It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in fact he had drafted an appeal and obtained a caveat report but never filed the appeal.

Further it has been stated that appellant in the year 2015 went to Dubai and kept on asking her counsel about the status of her appeal and was always informed that the appeal was not listed and was pending.  It is contended that now after the death of the earlier counsel, appellant has got to know that her appeal was never filed.

And accordingly the subject appeal was prepared and filed then after on 02.07.2020 with a delay of 3329 days. Even if assuming the party had been misled by the counsel, a delay of over 9 years cannot be held to be a reasonable delay. Parties have also to be watchful in pursuing  their rights and remedies.

In the view of facts and circumstances , the court held that the explanation rendered in the application does not constitute a sufficient cause for not filing or pursuing an appeal for over nine years.

In that view of the matter, the application seeking condonation MAC.APP.252/2021 3 of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.                                Click here to read the judgement

Judgement reveiwed by Amit Singh

 

 

 

 

 

0

Wife’s interim maintenance cannot be denied even if she is capable of earning and is a working professional: High Court of Delhi

Uncategorized

Judicial discipline circumscribes the Court from interfering in an Order rendered by the Courts below and only justifies interference if the Order is egregious in nature and suffers from legal perversity was upheld by the High Court Of Delhi through the learned bench led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD in the case of Jaspreet Singh Vs. Swaneet Kukreja (CRL.REV.P. 162/2021 & CRL.M.As. 5576/2021, 8691/2021) and Swaneet Kukreja Vs. Jaspreet Singh (CRL.REV.P. 194/2021)  on 28.02.2022.

Brief facts of the case are that CRL.REV.P has been filed by the husband challenging the Order dated 06.03.2021 wherein interim maintenance of Rs. 1,25,000/- was awarded to the wife and minor child CRL.REV.P.194/2021 has been filed by the wife challenging Order dated 06.03.2021 seeking an enhancement of the interim maintenance that was awarded.

Due to differences that cropped up between the husband and wife, the wife has been residing separately from the husband since July 2016, along with their minor child. An application seeking interim maintenance had been been filed by the wife Vide order dated 21.02.2018, the Ld. M.M. granted interim maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month, in addition to education expenses of the minor child. Both the parties filed cross-appeals against this Order dated 21.02.2018 before the Ld. ASJ. Vide impugned Order dated 06.03.2021, the Ld. ASJ allowed the appeal of the wife and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 45,000/- per month to a total of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the Order dated 06.03.2021, the husband and wife approached this Court by way of cross-appeals seeking revision of the impugned Order.

The learned Counsel for the husband has stated that the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month is an oppressive amount, especially in view of the fact that the husband has been unemployed since August 2020 and has been unable to secure a job.

The learned Counsel for the wife has stated that the impugned Order dated 06.03.2021 is bad in law as well as facts as it fails to take into account the true earning of the husband and has only calculated the interim maintenance of Rs. 1,25,000/- based on the lower level of the income in the ITR documents of the husband.

In view of facts and circumstances, court held that the enhanced maintenance that has been awarded vide impugned Order dated 06.03.2021 is in the form of interim maintenance. The High Court cannot substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the Courts below who have rendered their decision after considering all the material on record.

The Court observed that “the Ld. ASJ has correctly noted that even if it is proved that the wife is capable of earning and is a working professional, it is still no ground to deny her interim maintenance. Therefore, the direction of Rs. 1,25,000/- being paid per month as interim maintenance, with the wife and minor child receiving Rs. 62,500/- each, is an appropriate amount, considering the income of the husband. This Court finds no merit in the submissions of either the wife or the husband challenging the said Order and, therefore, does not deem it fit to interfere in the impugned Order dated 06.03.2021.”

Click here to read the Judgement

Written by- Riya Singh, Legal Intern, Prime Legal

 

0

Criminal Appeal allowed for Enlargement on Bail on certain grounds by the court: Karnataka High Court

Uncategorized

The criminal appeal is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner/accused praying to get enlargement on bail for offence punishable under section 370 ( which speaks about exploitation ) 506 ( punishment for criminal intimidation) read with 36 of ipc (effects caused partly by act and party by omission).And the petition is allowed by the High court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by the Honourable MR. justice H.P. Sandesh in the case of Rathnakumari vs state of Karnataka ( criminal appeal no. 253/2022) on 20th January 2022

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner along with other accused persons by making false representation to the victim that she would get the employment, forced the victim to have sexual intercourse with accused No.1. It is also an allegation against the accused persons that he has intoxicated her and made her to sleep with accused No.1 and when the police were in search of the victim, she was brought back to Periyapatna Police Station. Based on the complaint of the husband of the victim, the police have registered the case for the offence punishable under Sections 370 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and the matter is under investigation.

Arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation made in the complaint is doubtful and apart from that, the complaint has been lodged with delay of seven days and as per the averment of the victim, she left the home on 08.11.2021 and the complaint was lodged on 15.11.2021 and this petitioner has not indulged in any such activities and she has been in custody from 15.11.2021 and no need of custodial interrogation having taken note of the nature of allegations made in the complaint.

Arguments presented by the learned High Court Government pleader appearing for the respondent-State that in the search of the employment, the victim has been selected for a job and she was subjected to sexual act at the instance of this petitioner and this petitioner only persuaded the victim. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.

After hearing both the counsels and the records and facts presented before the Honourable court by their learned counsels, the victim was missing from 08.11.2021 and the complaint was given on 15.11.20212 and no doubt, there was a delay of seven days in lodging the complaint. The allegation is that this petitioner, who happens to be a friend of accused No.1 persuaded the victim and having taken note of the allegation made in the complaint, whether this petitioner had indulged in such act or not requires to be tested in trial and she has been in custody from 15.11.2021 and hence I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

After all this , court allowed the petition that petitioner shall be released on bail on certain grounds such as: The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses; The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause; The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against her is disposed of.

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Sugam Anand Mishra

 

 

 

0

Writ petition praying to quash and set aside the impugned order and allow regular appointment for government teacher allowed – Jharkhand high court

Uncategorized

Writ petition praying to quash and set aside the impugned order and allow regular appointment for government teacher allowed – Jharkhand high court

The present writ petition is filed by 32 petitioners seeking to quash and set aside the order passed dated 07.11.2017 and praying to allow uninterrupted services to the petitioners as approved teachers and avail pensionary benefits for the petitioners. The writ petition was heard and allowed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH in the case of Shri Oinam Manisana Singh and 31 Ors versus The State of Jharkhand and Anr. (WP (C) No. 137 of 2018)

The facts of the case are that the petitioners were Graduate Teachers in government-aided high schools and were approved by the competent authorities. the Secretary of the All Manipur Aided Secondary Schools Employees Association (Hills) (AMASSEA) submitted a representation dated 30.03.2014 to the Minister of Education (S), Manipur requesting for converting 13 (thirteen) Government Aided High Schools of the Hill Districts of Manipur having class IX and X into full-fledged Government High Schools with the absorption of the existing approved staffs. the said representation was passed by the cabinet and obtained the approval of the finance department. One of the conditions in the order was that all the 52 (fifty-two) approved Staffs, i.e., 3 (three) Graduate Teachers and 1 (one) LDC for each of the 13 (thirteen) schools who were approved by the Education (S) department will be retained after the date of conversion but the pay will be allowed after the verification from the department of education.

Petitioners aggrieved by this decision as many of the petitioners were on the date of retirement and if their past services as approved Teachers/LDCs are not absorbed or protected, the petitioners will be deprived of their valuable rights for availing their pensionary benefits and this will be discrimination against their services. the present writ petition has been filed in this matter.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners are approved Teachers/LDCs and some of the petitioners have rendered about 36 years service as approved employees in the erstwhile 13 (thirteen) aided schools before their absorption in Government service on 08.11.2016 and during the pendency of present writ petition the 15 of the petitioners has been retired without availing pensionary benefits and the condition approved by the finance department is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law as it was placed without any valid condition and the council relies on the judgment of East Coast Railway Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao” reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 and “S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India” reported in AIR 1967 SC 1427. The counsel submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed set aside and the respondents should be directed to protect the services rendered by the petitioners as approved Teachers so that the petitioners can enjoy their entitled pensionary benefits.

The court in the matter finds force and merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and examination of the memorandum for Cabinet dated 27.11.2015 and the proposal finds that no condition was mentioned either in the said memorandum for Cabinet or in the said decision of the Cabinet for effecting such conversion or absorption with effect from the date of issue of order by the Administrative Department and accordingly the court is of considerate view that the condition imposed by the finance department was neither in conformity with the decision taken by the State Cabinet nor is it supported by any reason, hence, the act of the Finance Department imposing such conditions is arbitrary and therefore legally unsustainable and accordingly allows the writ petition.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma

1 … 59 60 61 62 63 … 78