#bombayhighcourt Archives - Page 10 of 12

9 Aug

Alternate remedy not a bar to approach HC: Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #alternative remedy, #bombayhighcourt

Title: NAMDEO APPARAO CHATE AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.

Decided on: 26th July, 2023

+ WRIT PETITION NO. 6598 OF 2023

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioners have challenged the Awards dated 17.07.2015, 24.07.2015, 10.07.2015 and 02.06.20105, respectively by filing different petitions on 02.05.2023, which is practically after eight years.

Issues

Whether the High Court should dismiss the petitions because the other statutory remedies have not been exhausted?

Contentions

The petitioners contend that since they have not accepted the Awards delivered under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013, they can take recourse to the statutory, efficacious and expeditious remedy under Section 64 of the Act. It is a settled position of law that all the grounds can be raised under the said proceedings

The Respondents contend that the petitioners had approached this Court after eight years of the passing of the Awards, by avoiding the statutory remedy under Section 64. There is no reason set out as to why this Court should entertain these petitions directly. It was also not the contention of the petitioners that the statutory remedy is neither efficacious nor expeditious. No element of urgency had been made out in order to convince this Court to exercise jurisdiction. They relied on many judgments of the past to establish that the Court should dismiss these petitions because, there are other statutory remedies available.

Decision

The Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to decide whether to allow the petitions or not. There have been instances where, the High Court has allowed petitions although other statutory remedies were not exhausted. Alternate remedy is not a bar and therefore, the HC has allowed these petitions.

“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- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view the Judgment

9 Aug

Bombay High Court: The Right to seek enhanced compensation does not go away merely because the petitioner has signed an affidavit accepting that he will not claim enhanced compensation

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhighcourt, #landacquisition #rightoseekenhancedcompensation

Title: Devidas S/o Kawdu Channe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Decided on: 8th AUGUST, 2023.

WRIT PETITION NO. 4977 OF 2023

CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.

Facts of the Case

In this writ petition, the application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1984”) is rejected. The only ground raised in the petition is that without issuing notice and granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the application was rejected. The petitioners also claimed enhanced compensation due to this reason.

The Respondents opposed the enhanced compensation claim on the grounds that the petitioners have signed an affidavit accepting that they will not claim enhanced compensation in the future.

Issues

Whether rejection of the application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without issuing notice and granting opportunity of hearing is valid?
Whether the Petitioner can claim enhanced compensation due to this reason?

Decision

The Court held that without granting an opportunity of hearing and by following the principles of natural justice, the application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 cannot be decided. As such, the impugned order suffers from non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

The statutory right of the applicants to seek enhancement in the amount of compensation cannot be defeated in such manner. Such grounds are not tenable in the eyes of law.

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view judgment

8 Aug

The litigant should not suffer for want of necessary prayers for condonation of delay: Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhighcourt, #delay, #sec.138NIAct

Title: Praveen Otarmal Parmar v. M/s. Abhiroop Associates and Mr. Uday Raghunath Manerikar

Decided on: 7^th AUGUST 2023

+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2006

CORAM: S. M. MODAK, J.

Facts of the Case:

The Court of 11th Jt. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment dated 23rd March, 2006 in Case No.298 of 2003. The complaint was not filed in time and hence respondent was acquitted. It was the complainant who has preferred this Appeal.

The appellant had first sent a notice on 31^st Mar, 2006 and received no response from the firm or the partner. Notice was sent again on 16^th April and 21^st April to the firm and the partner respectively. Finally, he filed a complaint on 5^th June. The trial court held that there was a delay of 4 days (time period calculated from 31 March) and therefore, the accused were acquitted.

Issues

a) When the complainant filed the complaint on the basis of notice posted on second occasion, whether it was proper for the trial court to dismiss the complaint as time barred?
b) Whether trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the complainant to explain delay occurred?

Contentions

The appellant claimed that when the process was issued and when case has proceeded it was not proper for the trial Court to dismiss the complaint. It was obligatory on the trial Court either to condone delay on its own or ought to have given an opportunity to offer an explanation. They explained that the notices sent were not registered and were returned to him for being not claimed, which is why he sent fresh claims in the month of April. Thus, he explained this to be the right date from which the period of limitation should be calculated and also that the complaint was filed on the basis of second notice.

The Respondents supported the order and submitted that there is no duty cast upon the trial Court to condone the delay particularly when the complainant has not prayed for condonation of delay. The Respondents presented evidence that the notices were returned with the mark “intimation delivered.”

Decision

The Court held that since the prosecution under Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi-civil. The notices came back with the mark “unclaimed” and thus, the appellant needs to be given an opportunity to pray for condonation of delay. The Court added that the litigant should not suffer for want of necessary prayers for condonation of delay. Hence, the appeal was allowed.

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view judgment

7 Aug

Bombay High Court upholds challenge on the orders by Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under Sec. 25 of MVAT Act, 2002

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #bombayhighcourt, #MVAT

Title: Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Decided on: 3^rd AUGUST, 2023

WRIT PETITION NO.4505 OF 2022

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & JITENDRA JAIN, J.J

Facts of the Case

During the financial year 2006-07, the Petitioner executed two projects of electricity distribution line for Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) and one works contract project for Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) for laying down the pipeline of gas between Dabhol to Panvel. The Petitioner with respect to two contracts with MSEDCL claimed deduction from the contract price @ 25% as per Table prescribed in Rule 58 of the MVAT Rules for arriving at value of transfer of property in goods. However, with respect to contract with GAIL, the Petitioner claimed deduction under Rule 58(1)(a)-(h) on actual basis aggregating to Rs.30,59,93,405/-.

The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax issued a notice for verification of the books of account, to which the petitioner duly replied and submitted all the documents. In an order by him in 2018, it was mentioned that tax deduction on account of profit on supply of labour & service was not allowable. Profit on sale of labour only permissible. The Petitioner further submitted that for turnkey projects, there cannot be two separate agreements, one for sale of the goods and another for supply of labour and services.

DCST in the said order held that since the Petitioner had failed to submit correct amount of deduction of profit, they were not eligible to get the deductions provided under Rule 58(1)(a) to (h) and, therefore, the Petitioner would be allowed to claim deduction only as per Table under Rule 58(1) of the MVAT Rules. DCST, therefore, allowed deduction not on the actual basis with respect to GAIL project, but by applying a rate of 20% as per Serial No.11 of Table to Rule 58(1)

Issues

Whether the impugned orders by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to initiate proceedings under Section 25 of the MVAT Act were valid?

Decision

Held that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. In the show cause notice, jurisdiction is sought to be assumed on the premise that for claiming deduction of profit on sale of labour, there has to be two contract agreements by the dealer for the work with principal. In the present case, it was an indivisible contract without bifurcation of the goods and the service component which goes in for execution of the work awarded to the contractor.

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view the Judgment

4 Aug

The right to sue does not devolve to the legal heirs of deceased appellant in the appeal for enhancement of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption And Maintenance Act: Bombay High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhighcourt, #Maintenance

Title: Jayshree @ Pushpa and Anr. v. Satyendra

Decided on: 18th JULY, 2023

+ FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2021

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ..

Facts of the Case:

The applicant who is married daughter of the original Appellant and Respondent has filed present application seeking permission to bring her on record being legal heir of her deceased mother-appellant in an appeal for enhancement of maintenance.

Her mother (now deceased) was living away from her father and had therefore, applied for maintenance of 1.5 lakhs p.m. and was receiving Rs. 10,000 p.m. Dissatisfied by the amount of compensation, she appealed again, but during the pendency, the mother died. Therefore, the cause of action survives and the applicant is having right to continue with the appeal. Hence, it is prayed for bringing the applicant on record being legal heir of the original appellant.

Issues

Whether the right to sue survives/lies with the legal heirs of deceased appellant in the appeal for enhancement of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption And Maintenance Act?

Contentions

The appellants prayed that the right would continue.

The Respondents contended that the right to claim maintenance is in the personal nature and cause of action comes to an end on the death of the said person who had claimed maintenance under the statute. Therefore, in present case cause of action ceases on death of the original Appellant (wife) and no right accrues to the applicant-married daughter to continue with the cause for enhancement of the maintenance. The “right to claim maintenance” is not a proprietary right which devolves to the legal heirs of the wife or the husband. Order 22 Rule 1 provides that death of the plaintiff or defendant would not cause the suit to abate, if right to sue survives.

Decision

The Court held that the present applicant was not minor and she was not dependent on income of the Appellant. Therefore, taking into consideration of provisions of Order 22 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., no right to sue survives to the married daughter to claim for enhancement of maintenance in respect of deceased Appellant.

However, the applicant being a legal heir of the deceased appellant, therefore, she has right to recover arrears of maintenance granted under Judgment and Order dated 4th February, 2021 against her father/ Respondent after obtaining succession certificate from the competent court of law.

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view judgment

1 … 8 9 10 11 12