0

Eknath Shinde Faction is the original Shiv Sena : Maharashtra Speaker in the crisis of split of shiv sena party

Background:

The Maharashtra political crisis revolves around the disqualification of Eknath Shinde Faction of the Shiv Sena party after the Maharashtra election in 2022. The same was challenged by Shinde in the SC. Thackeray contended to the SC that the MLA’s of the Shinde-led Shiv Sena party can only save themselves through merger to another party. The dispute arises on which association is the real or original “shiv sena”. Subsequently, the Thackeray Faction plea was rejected by the SC and the same was transferred to a 7-bench court. Thackeray faction pleaded that the election commission should be challenged on recognizing Eknath Shinde led shiv sena to be original shiv Sena. On May 2023, the SC held the verdict that Eknath Shinde will continue as the CM of Maharashtra. The election commission gave the Shinde led party the original shiv sena sign of bow and arrow and the official name of shiv sena.

Current Scenario:

The SC gave appropriate notice to the Speaker, Rahul Narwekar to adjudicate on the matter relating to disqualification by January 10th 2024 and criticized the delay in adjudication process.

The Maharashtra Legislative assembly speaker, Rahul Narwekar gave a final verdict that the Eknath-Shinde led party as the original Shiv Sena party. He also rejected the disqualification notice produced by Thackeray to disqualify 16 MLA’s of the ruling party, including the chief minister, Eknath Shinde.

The challenge of Eknath Shinde against Thackeray is that he is the paksh pramukh which means he is the party head of the shiv sena party on the basis of legislative majority and Thackeray did not have the power to remove him. However, as per the 1999 party’s constitution amendment, the national executive as the highest party body.

References were taken to the 10th Schedule of the Constitution which mentions about Anti-defection laws. It states that a member shall be disqualified if he joins another political party after election takes place. It also mentions that a disqualification on the name of defection cannot be applied in the cases of merger. Under the 10th Schedule, the speaker acts in the power of a judge and decides whether the grounds of disqualification justified.

The speaker also stated that in the name of 10th Schedule, a dissent or disqualification cannot be enforced within a party over disciplinary issues. The main reason for upholding Shinde faction to be the original shiv sena was because Thackeray faction failed the test of legislative majority. The Shinde faction had the majority of the MLA’s present in the shiv sena members with 37MLA as opposed to 18MLAs in the Thackeray faction.

Interpretation of Schedule 10 of the Constitution:

The genesis of Schedule 10 of the constitution states that a defense for anti-defection is based on the merger of parties and not the split of parties. In the current matter, the factual basis of Shinde let party is that it did not merge to another party but rather split from shiv sena. This is not permitted under the Schedule 10 of the constitution.

The speaker contended that whoever the majority MLA lies with is the original party. It is argued that the test of “legislative majority” is not recognized under the 10th Schedule as the only recourse available for anti defection is merger. It should be noted that from the 2019 elections, the Shiv Sena party was fundamentally led by the Thackeray faction and not by the Shinde faction. The supreme court on its verdict regarding the matter held that a legislative party should be distinguished from a political party. It also held that the power to appoint a government whip lies within the political party which was Thackeray led government at that time.

The Thackeray led faction has planned to challenge the verdict in the SC on the principal contention of challenging the rule of ‘majority legislators’ not being the core principle of Schedule 10.

Conclusion :

The political dynamic of Maharashtra’s shiv sena party is that of game of cat and mouse. Despite the CM being won on majority supporting him, the challenge to the verdict shows a long lasting battle between Shinde and Thackeray in the upcoming years.

The court is also to fact the question whether the parliament or the speaker should have the power of adjudication without having bias over the parties involved.

0

Bombay HC calls demolition notice against the legal system, sets aside notice against shiv Sena member

TITLE : Sadanand Gangaram Kadam V Additional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan and Ors

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N. Jadhav

DATE :  6th January 2024

CITATION : WP No. 203 Of 2024

FACTS

The present Writ Petition was against Demolition Notice against the petitioner. The petitioner purchased a property of a firm called M/s. Sai Star Distributors. One of the 5 partners were the respondent and the petitioner. The respondent retired from the firm and the share of his property was shifted to the petitioner. The petitioner then constructed a resort after obtaining permission from the appropriate authorities. It was submitted that NA permission was received and in the miscellaneous conditions, any dispute with respect to ownership of the said land would be on the Petitioner in the event of any dispute. The respondent filed a private complaint alleging a breach of the NA permission granted. Petitioner filed statutory Appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Collector along with the stay Application. Subsequently a demolition notice was issued.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 247 of the Act :

(1) In the absence of any express provisions of this Code, or of any law for the time being in force to the contrary, an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey officer specified in column I of the Schedule E under this Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule whether or not ,such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the decision of order of the officer specified in column I of the said Schedule :

Provided that, in no case the number of appeals shall exceed two.

(2) When on account of promotion or change of designation, an appeal against any decision or order lies under this section to the same officer who has passed the decision or order appealed against, the appeal should lie to such other officer competent to decide the appeal to whom it may be transferred under the provisions of this Code.

ISSUES

Whether the complaint against the petitioner valid along with the demolition notice issued?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that though there is a statutory appeal pending, the facts are extremely strong and requires intervention of this court so no party can take advantage of the legal system and take is for granted.

The demolition notice was set aside and an ad-interim relief was given to the petitioners.

“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- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

Judicial intervention by Delhi HC required for the admission of EWS child in Delhi school

Title: OJAS SATYAWALI THROUGH HIS MOTHER BHAWNA PATHAK v DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & A

Citation:  W.P.(C) 12124/2023

Dated on: 9.1.2024

Corum:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

Facts of the case

The petitioner is a 7-year-old boy belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) stratum of society. His parents applied for admission of the Petitioner under the EWS category in the Class I for the 2023-2024 Academic Session. Dwarka International School (the Respondent School) – herein was selected as the most preferred school of choice in the application. Computerized draw of lots was conducted on 14 March 2023. As per the results which were released online, the petitioner succeeded in securing admission to the respondent- School. The Directorate of Education (DoE), by circular dated 14 March 2023 required the successful applicants to approach the school allotted to them. The writ petition avers that the petitioner made continuous efforts to get himself admitted in the respondent-School but that the respondent-School was unwilling to admit the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondent-School to admit the petitioner in Class 1. When this writ petition had come up for hearing before this Court on 15 September 2023, the contention of Mr. Gautam who appeared on behalf of the respondent-School was that there was a discrepancy in the address furnished in the application made by the petitioner to the DoE, and the actual residential address of the Petitioner. Incidentally, the difference is only that in the registration form, the residential address of the petitioner was different from that of it in Aadhar Card. even a spot verification had been conducted and it was found that when they spoke to the petitioners mother it was found that she was rescinding elsewhere.

Legal provision

A writ of mandamus was filed for the current case.  A writ of mandamus is a legal order issued by a court to compel a public authority or official to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to do. It is an extraordinary remedy that is used to enforce the performance of public duties that have been refused or neglected.

Court analysis and judgement

The High Court of New Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and ordered the respondent party (School) to regularize the admission of the petitioner and The petitioner shall continue to receive education in the respondent-School in the EWS/DG/CWSN category in accordance with law.

“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

0

Magistrate’s Unintentional Disclosure of Sexual Offense Victims’ Details is exception from sec 228 of the IPC : Kerala HC

Title: XXX v State of Kerla

Citation:  WA No. 29 of 2024

Dated on: 9.1.2024

Corum:  THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J. DESAI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.G.ARU

 

Facts of the case

The appellant filed a writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, challenging the judgment dated 12/12/2023, by which the learned Single Judge held that the Magistrate, who passed an order revealing the name and address of the victim, cannot be proceeded under Section 228A of I.P.C. The appellant is the complainant/victim in a crime registered for offences punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(a), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(l), 376(2)(n), 323 & 506(ii) of the IPC. The Magistrate was bound to mask the name and address of the prosecutrix, but in this case, the Magistrate mentioned the name and details of the appellant in the order and therefore, action is required to be taken against the Magistrate. The judgement clearly mentions that the magistrate was acting in performance of judicial duties and the error committed by her, or her office, is that the order was not anonymised qua the petitioner.

Legal Provision

In this present case the complainant was registered for offences under section 376 of the IPC which deals with the offence of rape and filed a complaint against the magistrate for passing an order which included the name of the victim and wanted to take action against the magistrate under section 228 of the IPC which deals with the intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The high court of Kerala after looking into merit of the case gave a verdict  that Court cannot, find the request of the petitioner, for initiation of action against the learned Magistrate under Section 228 A of the IPC, to be worthy of grant, specifically within the ambit of the said Section and as held by the single judge bench a mere mistake of the magistrate can not lead to action under section 228 of the IPC and dismissed the writ appeal .

“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

 

 

0

Jharkhand HC quashes criminal proceedings against company and director for non compliance with CGST summons

Title: Satyendra Singh Kushwaha v The State of Jharkhand

CitationCr.M.P. No. 2454 of 2019

Dated on: 19.6.2019

Corum:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

 

Facts of the case

In the case of Satyendra Singh Kushwah vs. State of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings in the case. The central issue revolved around non-compliance with summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The petitioner, Director of M/s. SSK Devcon Private Limited, and the company itself filed petitions for the quashing of criminal proceedings. The complaint alleged non-payment of GST from January 2018 to November 2018, ignoring summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and violation of Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court noted that the petitioner had replied to the summons, providing details of payments made. The authority concerned acknowledged the replies and granted time for further deposits. The total GST amount of Rs.5,60,52,391/- was eventually paid on 08.02.2019. No proceedings for tax determination or recovery were initiated, indicating no outstanding dues against the petitioners. The court highlighted that summon replies, entertained by the authority, evidenced compliance. It emphasized that continuing proceedings under Section 174 IPC would amount to an abuse of legal process, especially considering the prescribed penalties under the CGST Act.

Legal Provision

Section 70 of the central goods and service tax (CGST) Act, 2017 empowers the proper officer to summon any persons whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner as provided in CPC, 1908. In case of Satyendra Singh Kushwah v State of Jharkhand, the central issue revolved around non compliance with summons issued under section 70 of the CGST Act.

Section 174 of the IPC deals with nonattendance in obedience to an order form a public servant. It states that whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent as such public servant, to issue the same intentionally omits to attend at that place or time or departs shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which extends to five hundred rupees or with both.

In the Satyendra Singh Kushwaha v State of Jharkhand case, the complainant alleged non-payment of GST from Jan 2018 to November 2018, ignoring summons under section 70 of the CGST act, violation of section 174 of IPC.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The court noted that the petitioner had replied to the summons, providing details of payments made. The authority concerned acknowledged the replies and granted time for further deposits. The total GST amount of Rs.5,60,52,391/- was eventually paid on 08.02.2019. No proceedings for tax determination or recovery were initiated, indicating no outstanding dues against the petitioners. The court highlighted that summon replies, entertained by the authority, evidenced compliance. It emphasized that continuing proceedings under section 174 IPC would amount to abuse of legal process, especially considering the prescribed penalties under the CGST Act.  and the HC of Jharkhand 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

1 5 6 7 8 9 72