0

SUPREME COURT GIVES ACTIVIST MAHESH RAUT INTERIM BAIL IN THE BHIMA-KOREGAON CASE.

Articles, Blog, News & Media links, Supreme Court , , , , , , , , , ,

Mahesh Raut, an activist and one of the defendants in the Bhima-Koregaon case, was recently granted interim release by the Supreme Court for two weeks so that he could attend rites when his grandmother passed away.

Raut was granted temporary bail by a vacation bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti from June 26 to July 10.The bench mandated Raut’s unconditional surrender on July 10. It further stated that the Special NIA court’s terms and conditions will apply to the interim bail.

“Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the length of Raut’s previous incarceration, and the nature of the request, we are inclined to give interim bail of two weeks to the applicant, which may begin on June 26 and expire on July 10. The NIA Special Court will specify the conditions of release. NIA may ask the trial court to set strict requirements. The judgement from the highest court said that the petitioner must surrender on July 10.

The 33-year-old Raut’s request for temporary release was rejected by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Raut’s attorney informed the supreme court on the final day of the trial that he was pleading for an interim release so he could go to Gadchiroli to attend funeral rites following the passing of his grandmother.

The Bombay High Court’s September 21 ruling allowing Raut, who was detained in June 2018 and is now being held in judicial custody at the Taloja jail, bail was challenged by NIA, and the supreme court granted the stay. Prosecution claims that comments made during the gathering, which was reportedly sponsored by the CPI(M), a banned terror organisation, were provocative and inflammatory, and that this ultimately resulted in violence in Koregaon Bhima hamlet, close to Pune, in 2018.

“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 falls 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: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

Daughter’s Right in Coparcenary Property:  Bombay High Court Affirms.

Uncategorized , ,

Case Title – Kamalakar Purushotam Inamdar & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajani Shriram Madiwale & Ors.

Case No. – Second Appeal No. 335, 336 of 2015

Dated on – 14th June, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Facts of the Case –

Purushotam, upon his death, left behind two properties: Kashidwadi (self-acquired) and Padali (ancestral). Dispute arose over the inheritance of these properties, particularly concerning the applicability of the 2005 Amendment Act to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which granted daughters equal coparcenary rights in ancestral properties. The main issue was whether Purushotam’s daughters, Defendant Nos. 7 and 8, could claim coparcenary rights in Padali despite their mother’s death before the enactment of the amendment. The case revolved around interpreting the retroactive application of the amended law to determine the inheritance rights of the parties involved.

Issues –

  • Whether the finding of the 1st Appellate Court that the suit property was the self-acquired property is based on misreading of the evidence on record and the evidence which has come on record?
  • Whether on proper appreciation of the evidence the Plaintiff can be stated to have discharged the burden of proving that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties?
  • Whether the Courts have properly interpreted amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, while granting equal share to the Plaintiffs?

Legal Provisions –

  • Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956

 

Contentions of the Appellant –

The appellant in this case primarily contends that the lower court erred in its classification of the properties in question, specifically Kashidwadi and Padali, as self-acquired and ancestral, respectively. It is argued that the evidence presented clearly establishes Kashidwadi property as ancestral, contrary to the lower court’s finding of it being self-acquired. This classification discrepancy is crucial because it impacts the appellant’s entitlement to a share in the ancestral property under Hindu Succession laws. Additionally, the appellant disputes the lower court’s calculation of shares in both properties, asserting that their entitlement has been incorrectly determined. The appeal further challenges the application of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, concerning the appellant’s deceased ancestor, Indira, and the effect on her inheritance rights vis-à-vis the ancestral Padali property. Therefore, the appellant seeks a reversal of the lower court’s decisions regarding property classification and shares, based on a correct interpretation of the law and evidence presented.

 

Contentions of the Respondent –

The respondent in this case maintains that the lower court’s classification of the properties, Kashidwadi and Padali, as self-acquired and ancestral respectively, was correct based on the evidence presented during trial. They argue that the lower court properly applied the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in determining the nature of these properties and the entitlements of the parties involved. The respondent contends that the appellant’s challenge to this classification lacks merit and is based on a misinterpretation of the evidence and legal principles. Furthermore, they assert that the calculation of shares by the lower court was accurate and in accordance with the applicable laws, particularly with regard to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The respondent emphasizes that the rights of the parties, including those of the deceased ancestor Indira, were correctly adjudicated by the lower court, ensuring equitable distribution as per the legal framework governing succession. Therefore, the respondent opposes the appeal and seeks to uphold the lower court’s decisions regarding property classification, shares, and the application of relevant laws.

 

Court Analysis and Judgement –

The court analyzed the appeal in light of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly focusing on the amendments introduced in 2005. It deliberated on the nature of the properties in question—Kashidwadi and Padali—deciding Kashidwadi was self-acquired by Purushotam and Padali was ancestral. The court scrutinized the evidence to ascertain whether the properties were correctly classified. It upheld the lower court’s determination that Kashidwadi was self-acquired and Padali was ancestral, dismissing the appellant’s challenge.

Regarding shares, the court affirmed the lower court’s distribution under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It concluded that Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 each were entitled to 7/36th share in Padali, with Defendant Nos.4 to 6 collectively entitled to 7/36th share, and Defendant Nos.7 and 8 collectively to 1/36th share. The court maintained the calculation and distribution of shares were legally sound.

 

“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- Anurag Das

Click here to read the Judgement.

0

Supreme Court Directs the High Court to Re-examine Employee Regularization Dispute: Requested the High Court to Expedite the Prolonged Litigation

Blog, Bombay High Court, Supreme court, Uncategorized , , ,

Case Title – Solapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Shankarrao Govindrao Patil & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 423

Case Number – Civil Appeal No. 9127-9132/2018 with Civil Appeal No. 9133/2018

Dated on – 15th May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Sanjay Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Solapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Shankarrao Govindrao Patil & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 423, the Solapur Municipal Corporation, herein the Appellant, instituted six appeals against a judgment dated 31st of July, 2013, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which allowed the Writ Petition Nos. 197/2012, 2011/2003 and 2432/2003. The decision of the High Court recognized the Respondents, former employees of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat (merged with the Solapur Municipal Corporation), as having been absorbed by the corporation from the 5th of May, 1992 and entitled to regular service benefits. A subsequent order dated 8th of August, 1992 dismissed the review petitions filed by the Corporation. Another writ petition, W.P. No. 2463/2010, followed the same judgment, and the Corporation instituted a Civil Appeal No. 9133/2018 against this decision.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Respondents, employees of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat, were regular employees entitled to absorption by Solapur Municipal Corporation from the date of the merger on the 5th of August, 1992?
Whether the services of the Respondents from the dated 5th of May, 1992 to 1st of February,2003 should be treated as a regular service with the Corporation?
Whether the Respondents were entitled to service and retirement benefits based on the claim that their service should be deemed regular from the merger date?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 493(5)(C) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 stated that all officers and servants in the employ of the said municipality or local authority immediately before the appointed day shall be officers and servants employed by the Corporation under this Act and shall, until other provision is made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, receive salaries and allowances and be subject to the conditions of service to which they were entitled or subject on such date
Section 493 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 prescribes the Continuation of appointments, taxes, budget estimates, assessments, etc.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Special Leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Respondents were daily wage workers until the 1st of February, 2003 and not regular employees from the 5th of May, 1992.
The Appellant referred to a corporation resolution dated 31st of August, 2002, which made the 300 employees permanent only from the date of government approval i.e., the 25th of March, 2003 and clarified that the arrears for earlier periods were not permissible.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that they were regular employees of Majarewadi Gram Panchayat before the merger, thereby entitling them to regularization from the 5th of May, 1992 under Section 493(5)(C) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
A resolution was produced by the Respondents from the Majarewadi Gram Panchayat dated 20th of March, 1992, indicating the permanent appointments of employees from the 31st of March, 1992 and individual appointment orders as proof of their regular employment status.
It was asserted that their service from the merger date till their regularization in 2003 should be considered continuous and regular, thus entitling them to full-service benefits.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Solapur Municipal Corporation Vs. Shankarrao Govindrao Patil & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 423, examined the Section 493 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, especially the clause 5(C) in Appendix IV, which addresses the continuation of appointments and conditions of service for employees of merged municipalities. The court observed the new documentary evidences furnished by the Respondents, inclusive of the resolutions and appointment orders, which were not previously considered by the High Court. The court observed that the High Court had based its judgment on an affidavit and the sanction of 300 posts but did not have the opportunity to scrutinize the new judgments. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 31st of July, 2013 and the 8th of August, 2014 and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the new documents. The court permitted both the parties to submit further documentary evidence. The High Court was requested to prioritize and expedite the case, taking into consideration the prolonged nature of the litigation. Each party was to bear its own cost and all pending applications were disposed of.

“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 – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

“Bombay High Court Confirmed Civil Judge’s Removal from Service: Upholding Judicial Integrity Through Substantial Evidence of Misconduct and the Importance of Upholding Judicial Integrity.”

Blog, Bombay High Court , , , ,

Case Title – Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr.

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 15539 of 2022

Dated on – 23rd April,2024

Quorum – Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr., Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, the Appellant in the said case, was appointed as a Civil Judge Junior Division on 19th of March,2010. During the term of Aniruddha’s serving as the Civil Judge Junior Division, several complaints were instituted against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak stating his misbehaviour, absenteeism and presiding over the court under the due influence of alcohol. Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak’s misconducted was highlighted from the reports of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nandurbar and the Shahada Bar Association. A discerning inquiry was conducted by the District Judge, Jalgaon during which it was observed that Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak’s behaviour was irregular which included not following court timings and wandering around in the near vicinity of the court. On dated 6th of January, 2018, Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak was involved himself in a serious incident at the Maharashtra Judicial Academy at Uttan, where he was spotted in an intoxicated state during a mediation course. Subsequently, he was relieved from the course. Charges were framed against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, which comprised of not following court timings, defection of duty, and being inebriated during the official duties. An inquiry committee found Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak guilty of charges 1,6 and 7 leading to his removal from the Judicial Service under Rule 5(1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the order of disposition was based on conjectures and lacked concrete evidences.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the Appellant was not adequately examined after the incident at Uttan and that the testimonies of the witnesses were conflicting.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the punishment of disposal from the position of power was disproportionate to the charges against him.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case relied on the past judgment of the court, including the Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao Naiknimbalkar Vs. Governor, State of Maharashtra, Bombay & Ors. And Rahul s/o Abhimanyu Ranpise Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., to support the contentions of the Appellant.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented while supporting the order of disposal of the Appellant, that the court should emphasize on the need for judges to uphold high standards of conduct.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the evidences clearly established the misconduct and inadequate behaviour of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak while presiding over the court as well as in the vicinity of the court, justifying his disposition from the Judicial Services.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case cited the seriousness of the charges and the importance of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Power of the Courts to issue Writs.
  2. Rule 5 (1)(viii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 governs the removal of the civil servants for misconduct.

ISSUES

  1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether the charges against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak were proven?
  2. Whether the punishment of disposition of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak was proportionate to the charges imposed on him?
  3. Whether there were any irregularities in the procedure in the disciplinary process?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak Vs. Registrar General, Bombay High Court & Anr., recognised the narrow scope of the Judicial Review in the matter of services, stating that interference is warranted only if there are irregularities in the procedures or arbitrariness in the decision making. The court referred to the precedents and replicated the duty of the judiciary to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct. The court observed that the charges against Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak, including not following the timings of the court and being inebriated while presiding over the court were supported with substantial evidences. The court, considering the grave nature of the charges and the significance of judicial integrity, rejected the contentions of the Appellant that the punishment of disposition was disproportionate. The court in the present case, held that there were no irregularities in the procedures followed in the disciplinary process and that the decision of disposition of the Appellant from the service was justified. The court overturned and deemed inapplicable, all the precedents cited by the appellant, further strengthening the case of the disposition of the Appellant. The court, in the end, dismissed the Writ Petition instituted by the Appellant, upholding the decision of the disposition of the Appellant from the judicial services.

“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 – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

11

Bombay High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to formulate SOP in order to avoid the need for Court’s approval in MTP exceeding 24 Weeks

Blog , , , , , , , , , , 11

Case title: ABC Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Case no.: Writ Petition No. 2319 of 2024

Decision on: April 5th, 2024

Quoram: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Nitin W Sambre

Facts of the case

The petitioner had filed a writ under Article 226 and sought the Court to direct the respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination of pregnancy on the ground of carrying abnormal foetus. Considering the fact that her pregnancy had exceeded twenty four weeks, the Court directed the Civil Surgeon to conduct a medical examination and submit a report.

The Medical Board at the General Hospital, Wardha, comprising nine doctors and one matron, conducted the examination and submitted its report, confirming the abnormalities in the foetus. The Report of the Medical Board revealed that continuation of pregnancy of petitioner who is thirty two weeks pregnant would result in grave injury to her mental health and also involve substantial risks as to physical abnormalities of her child, if born. The Medical Board thus recommended for the termination of pregnancy.

Issue – Medical Termination of Pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks in case of carrying abnormal foetus.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court delved into Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and noted that a pregnancy with a length of twenty weeks may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner and where the length of pregnancy is between twenty and twenty four weeks by two registered practitioners. Further, it also highlighted the exception carved out under sub-section 2B of Section 3, which permitted the termination of pregnancy exceeding twenty-four weeks if the diagnosis by Medical Board suggests that continuance of the same would lead to substantial foetal abnormalities. In view of the above statutory provisions, the Court directed the Management of the Hospital to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner.

However in the course of passing the order, it also observed averments on the Doctors of General Hospital, Wardha. The Court noted that despite the provision of the MTP Act and the MTP Rules, 2003, which laid down mandate as to the termination of pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks, the doctors ignored the referral to a Medical Board in such cases and forced the petitioner to seek the permission of the court to terminate her pregnancy.

In light of the above analysis, the Court directed the Department of Public Health and the Department of Medical Education and Drugs of the State of Maharashtra to formulate Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and issue the same to all government hospitals and medical colleges in the State of Maharashtra in order to avoid the need for Court’s approval in such matters. It also took into account the petitioner’s financial constraints and directed the Management of General Hospital, Wardha to bear all the expenses related to hospitalization, procedures, and medicines. Thereby, posted the matter on June 12th, 2024.

“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

1 2 3 4 … 12