#bombayhc Archives - Page 2 of 10

2 Apr

The Bombay High Court considering the steps taken by ECI in educating the people about the NOTA option, dismissed the PIL which sought for enhancement on the same

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #ECI, #NOTA, #PIL, #PUCL, #VotersEducation

Case title: Suhas Manohar Wankhede Vs Election Commission of India & Ors.

Case no.: PIL NO. 33 of 2024

Decision on: March 22nd, 2024

Quoram: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge AND Justice R. M. Joshi

Facts of the case

The petitioner through a PIL expressed concerns about the Election Commission of India’s endeavour to educate voters about Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) specifically the use of the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option. The petitioner pleaded the ECI to appoint a brand ambassador and initiate a campaign on promoting awareness and understanding of the NOTA option. He placed reliance on People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr Vs. Union of India and Anr. case, in line of his plea.

The Counsel for the Union of India and the Election Commission of India submitted that since the Petitioner had earlier filed a PIL on an identical matter, this Court should not entertain the instant Petition and contended that it deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs as it is publicity oriented.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court on perusal of the submissions made by the parties and the earlier PIL on the subject matter noted that the pleadings presented in the instant case are identical earlier PIL filed by this Petitioner, wherein the petitioner aggrieved that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is violating the directives of the Supreme Court. The petitioner referenced the same judgment as in the earlier case to support his claims.

The court examined a pamphlet titled “Chunav Ka Parv, Desh Ka Garv, Lok Sabha Election 2024” presented by the ECI, which served as a pictorial guide to the voters. The Court noted that the pamphlet contained information on the voting process, including the use of EVMs and the NOTA option. It elaborated on the steps to spread awareness among the voters on, (a) the process of registration online as well as off line, (b) verification of details, (c) enrolment as a new voter, (d) method of searching the name in the voters’ list, etc. So also, the voter is made aware that a holiday is declared on the polling day to facilitate casting of vote. A catchy statement is also set out as “It is not a holiday, it is a voting day”.

The Court further brought out the rulings of Apex Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another case. The Supreme Court in this case declared that Rules 41(2) and (3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 were ultra vires to section 128 of the Representation of the People Act and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, to the extent that they violate secrecy of voting. The Election Commission was directed to make a necessary provision in the ballot paper/EVMs and add another button called “NOTA” in the EVMs, so that the voters who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any candidate, are able to exercise their right to vote for NOTA, while maintaining their right of secrecy. The Election Commission was directed to undertake an awareness programme to educate the masses.

The Court, in light of the above findings noted that the Election Commission has already come out with a manual on Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP), in July 2020. Moreover, considering the steps taken by the ECI and the State Election Commission and the fact that this Petitioner had filed an identical Petition earlier, the Court dismissed the present PIL petition. However, it refrained from imposing costs on the petitioner as he was a Ph.D. student and directed the registry to scrutinize any future petitions filed by him on similar issues before registering them.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

17 Jan

Bombay High Court quashes PIL which is poorly drafted and presented; calls it haphazard to the justice system

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #law, #legalnews, #PIL

TITLE : Forum for fast Justice V University of Mumbai

CORAM : Hon’ble Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

DATE : 15^th January 2024

CITATION : PIL No.49 of 2024

FACTS

A PIL was filed to direct the university and BCI to verify whether all law colleges under the jurisdiction of Mumbai University has functioning legal aid cells and to grant funds to run legal aid cells. The maintainability of the petition was challenged in the current case. It was argued by the petitioners that the PIL is not vague and invoked Article 39-A of the constitution.

LAWS INVOLVED

Article 39-A of the Constitution of India provides for “equal justice” and “free legal aid” and it was for the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice.

ISSUES

Whether the PIL is maintainable

JUDGEMENT

The court observed that the petitioners did not present any material on record which proves that the state is not fulfilling its objective on legal aid. There is no legal basis to the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner has also not proved maintainability in the court.

The court took reference to another PIL which was considered to be baseless. It stated that poorly drafted and haphazardly presented petitions will not be entertained by the court. It firmly held that :

“the judicial system operates with limited time and resources, and frivolous or poorly presented PILs burden the Court and hinder the resolution of other genuine and urgent cases”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

17 Jan

Bombay HC dismisses petition which seeks for arbitration when the conciliation proceeding was abruptly terminated.

Prime Legal

Blog #arbitration, #bombayhc, #debt, #legalnews

TITLE : Bafna udyog v Micro and Small enterprises, Facilitation council

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Neela Gokhale

DATE : 16^th January 2024

CITATION : Arbitration Petition No.201 of 2023

FACTS

The petitioner seeks appointment of a retired judge to conduct the arbitration proceedings. The petitioner also requests the court to direct the respondent to produce all records required for the proceedings. The petitioner is registered under MSMED Act, 2006. The respondent owes Rs. 92,41,072 to the petitioner with future interest as per the act.

The dispute among the parties remained unsolved. The petitioner contends that the respondent acknowledged the debt he owes. The petitioner filed a conciliation proceeding which upon getting failed has approached for arbitration under Section 11(6) of the arbitration act. The respondents did not show up during the proceedings even after issuing notice.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 11(6) states that an arbitrator would be appointed by the arbitral forum if none of the parties take initiative to appoint an arbitrator or fails to seek for an arbitrator.

ISSUES

Whether the petitioner was right in asking for an arbitration proceeding?

JUDGEMENT

The court observed that the arbitration proceeding would be invalid as per the MSMED Act. There is an alternative remedy available in law to first observe failure of conciliation proceeding and then approach for arbitration. In the present matter, the conciliation proceeding was terminated which is against Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act which states that only after failure of conciliation proceeding, an arbitration recourse can be proceeded with.

The petiton was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

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

The Bombay HC quashes industrial court orders with regards to payment of wages

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #labourlaw, #law, #wages #industraltribunal

TITLE : The Maharashtra State Co-operative V Smt. Bhagyashree Pravin Kulkarni

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V Marne

DATE : 5^th January 2024

CITATION : WP No. 13300 Of 2023

FACTS

The petition was filed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation challenging the order of Industrial Court. The industrial court granted protection to the respondent in the form of direction to the petitioners to pay wages from the date of transfer to the contractor. The respondent was employed as a typist in the petitioner company on a daily wage basis. The respondent claimed that the action of the petitioners from transferring her from one organization to another was illegal. Despite being transferred, she wasn’t paid as per the new organization standard. The respondent filed that the wage was paid through the previous workplace and not the current one.

ISSUES

Whether the orders passed by industrial court is valid?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the interim application filed by the respondent is totally baseless. The industrial court held that the wages must be paid as taking effect from the date of transfer. The industrial court also directed the federation to pay wages from the date of transfer again, albeit her drawing wages from the second company. The court also directed to ensure that the increment of 5 years from 2019 is paid to the respondent, from Rs.500 to Rs.600.

The court declared that the industrial court has misdirected and is unsustainable. The respondent is already protected in the form of continuation of services. Further, it was held that the respondent did not contend the same for 5 years, therefore the demand of the respondent is not entertainable.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3 4 … 10