#delhi Archives - Prime Legal

22 Sep

Delhi High Court’s Verdict: Denied! British Director’s Travel Plea Amid Money Laundering Charges

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #moneylaundering

Case Title: Mandhir Singh Todd v. Directorate of Enforcement

Date of Decision: 21st September 2023

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 289/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Introduction

This case involves a petition filed by Mandhir Singh Todd, a British citizen of Indian origin, seeking the setting aside of an impugned order dated 11th October 2022 issued by the Central District Court Tis Hazari. The order had declined Todd’s application to set aside a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him and to permit him to travel to London for medical treatment related to his rare eye condition.

Factual Background

Mandhir Singh Todd is a director in two Indian companies dealing with luxury cars. HDFC bank had provided credit facilities to these companies based on financial documents provided by Todd, and a Deed of Hypothecation was executed. Subsequently, it was discovered that Todd had submitted forged documents to obtain these facilities, leading to substantial losses for the bank. Further investigation revealed several fraudulent practices, including misrepresentation of stock, diversion of sale proceeds, and acquiring proceeds of crime amounting to 115 crores.

Legal Issues

Whether the petitioner should be granted permission to travel to London for medical treatment?
Should the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner be set aside or suspended?

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner (Todd’s Arguments):

Todd argued that he needed to travel to London for rare medical treatment unavailable in India.
He had already undergone eye surgery twice for his condition.

He was willing to provide additional sureties, surrender family passports, and appear via video conference when needed.

Respondent (ED’s Arguments):

The accused is involved in a money laundering case with substantial proceeds of crime.
There is a risk of him fleeing the country, and India does not have extradition treaties with certain countries where he has properties.

The treatment sought was available in India.

Observation and Analysis

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the availability of treatment in India, and the risk of the accused fleeing the country. It referenced previous judgments and upheld the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of balancing an individual’s right to travel with the prosecution’s right to ensure trial attendance.

Decision and Conclusion

The High Court of Delhi upheld the lower court’s decision, dismissing Todd’s petition. It concluded that the treatment he sought was available in India, and there were serious allegations against him, making it crucial for him to attend trial. Todd’s request to set aside the Look Out Circular and travel to London was denied.

“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 – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

22 Sep

Delhi High Court Denies Relief to Nigerian National in NDPS Case

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #NDPS

Case Title: Kenechukwu Joseph v. The State

Date of Decision: September 21, 2023

Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 352/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Introduction

This case revolves around a bail application filed by Kenechukwu Joseph under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The petitioner alleges that he was falsely implicated in a drug-related case and has been in custody since January 16, 2020.

Factual Background

On January 16, 2020, the special staff office received a secret tip-off regarding the transportation of narcotics substances. Acting on this information, a team was formed, and a trap was set near Hotel Radisson Blu, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner, Kenechukwu Joseph, a Nigerian national residing in Delhi, was apprehended. During a search, a poly bag containing 140 grams of cocaine was found in his possession. Two samples of 5 grams each were extracted, and the remaining 130 grams were seized. Subsequently, the case was registered under the NDPS Act, and the investigation commenced.

Legal Issue

The primary legal issue in this case revolves around the petitioner’s eligibility for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to offenses being cognizable and non-bailable.

Contentions

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, citing discrepancies in the arrest location and contradictions in the prosecution’s version of events. They also raised concerns about tampering with the narcotics samples and the sealing of evidence. The petitioner had been in custody for over three years, and only a fraction of the witnesses had been examined, making a lengthy trial likely.

The state’s counsel opposed the bail application, asserting that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of cocaine. They also highlighted the petitioner’s non-resident status and lack of a permanent address in India, raising concerns about potential absconding.

Observation and Analysis

The court observed that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. It requires a court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail.

The court cited precedents indicating that procedural lapses, such as issues with sampling and sealing of evidence, should be assessed during trial, not during bail hearings. Non-compliance with these procedures may affect the probative value of evidence but does not automatically vitiate the trial.

Decision and Conclusion

The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage. The issues related to sampling, contradictions, and tampering should be examined during the trial. Given the seriousness of the charges and the quantity of narcotics involved, the court found no grounds to grant bail to the petitioner. Thus, the bail application was dismissed.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

21 Sep

Delhi High Court Initiates Contempt of Court Proceedings Against Defendant in Property Dispute

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt

Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v. Javed Hasan

Date of Decision: September 18, 2023

Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 994/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan

Introduction

This judgment pertains to Contempt of Court proceedings initiated against Mr. Javed Hasan, the defendant in a property dispute case. The defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with undertakings and orders of the court related to vacating a property and paying arrears of rent. This judgment discusses whether the defendant’s actions amounted to civil contempt.

Factual Background

The case originated from a suit filed in 2019 by the plaintiffs, Mr. Rajesh Chopra and Mr. Govind Patel, against Mr. Javed Hasan, the defendant, for possession of a shop property in New Delhi and the payment of rent, mesne profits, and electricity charges. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had failed to vacate the property after the lease period ended, caused structural damage, and did not pay rent or electricity charges. The trial court partially decreed the case on May 4, 2022.

The defendant filed an appeal in the High Court, which was disposed of on August 1, 2022. The defendant undertook to vacate the premises within six months and pay arrears of rent in equal installments. However, he failed to adhere to this undertaking.

Subsequent orders and extensions were granted, but the defendant continuously failed to comply with the court’s directions. Contempt proceedings were initiated due to his repeated violations of court orders.

Legal Issue

The primary legal issue in this case is whether the defendant’s actions constituted civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for wilful disobedience to court orders and undertakings.

Observations and Decision of the Court

The court observed that the defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with undertakings given to the court and court orders, and his conduct amounted to wilful disobedience, constituting civil contempt.

The court held the defendant guilty of civil contempt and ordered him to appear in person on November 7, 2023, for sentencing. The court directed the defendant to vacate the property within one week, and failure to do so would result in coercive measures by the Executing Court. Additionally, the court imposed costs on the defendant, which could be recovered by the plaintiffs during execution proceedings.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

21 Sep

Delhi High Court Upholds Decision on Flight Allowances for Unfit Pilot

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt

Case Title: Airlines Allied Services Limited v. Ashok Kumar Malhotra

Date of Decision: September 20, 2023

Case Number: RFA 433/2016

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao

Introduction

This case involves a review petition filed by the respondent (Ashok Kumar Malhotra) against a judgment dated April 6, 2021, by the Delhi High Court. In the earlier judgment, the High Court had partially allowed the appeal filed by the appellant (Airlines Allied Services Limited), setting aside the Flying Allowance/Executive Allowance granted to the respondent by the Trial Court.

Factual Background

The respondent, a pilot, had filed a suit against the appellant, claiming various allowances, including Flying Allowance/Executive Allowance and Other Payments. The Trial Court partially ruled in favor of the respondent, granting him some of the claimed allowances. The appellant appealed the decision, which led to the aforementioned judgment.

Legal Issues

The primary issue in the review petition was the interpretation of the contract between the parties, specifically regarding Flight Related Allowances and whether they should be considered part of the respondent’s salary. Additionally, the review petition challenges whether the High Court correctly considered the admission made by the appellant in its written statement.

Contentions

The respondent contended that the High Court failed to consider the appellant’s admission that Flight Related Allowances were fixed after an amendment to FTEA in 2006.
The respondent argued that Flight Related Allowances were part of his salary, supported by salary slips and contract amendments.
The respondent argued that the High Court did not fully consider the impact of the contract amendment, which included the concept of equal pay for equal work.
The appellant argued that the respondent was unfit to fly, justifying the non-payment of Flight Related Allowances.

The appellant countered that the review petition lacked merit and did not fall under the grounds for review as per Order XLVII CPC (Civil Procedure Code).
The appellant argued that the respondent’s attempt to review the case was merely an attempt to reopen settled facts and reinterpret the contract.

Observation and Analysis

The High Court had previously considered the interpretation of the employment contract, the nature of allowances, and the fitness of the respondent to fly. The judgment explained that Flight Related Allowances were not part of the salary due to the distinction in the contract, and the respondent’s unfitness for flying justified the non-payment of such allowances.

Decision of the Court

The High Court emphasized that the interpretation of a contract, which was the primary issue in contention, could not be a subject for a review petition unless there was an error apparent on the face of the record. After analyzing the relevant contract provisions, the court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to Flight Related Allowances due to being declared unfit for flying. It further concluded that the review petition did not present any new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record, which would warrant a review under the Civil Procedure Code. The court upheld its earlier judgment and dismissed the review petition.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

20 Sep

NHAI’s Battle for Compensation: Deciphering Delhi High Court’s Recent Decision

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. D S Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Decision: 19/09/2023

Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM.) 546/2016 & I.A.15029/2016

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Factual Background

In this case, the petitioner, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 07.07.2016. The arbitral award was made in response to disputes arising from a Concession Agreement between NHAI and the respondent, D S Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd., regarding the construction and operation of a highway in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contested certain claims made by the respondent and sought a review of the award.

Legal Issue

The key legal issue in this case was the interpretation of the Concession Agreement and the applicability of specific clauses regarding compensation for delays and additional costs.

Observation and Analysis

The Court examined the relevant clauses of the Concession Agreement, particularly sub-clauses 13.5.1, 13.5.2, and 31.2, to determine the appropriate compensation for the delays. The Court emphasized that a comprehensive reading of the clauses, including their provisos, was essential. It concluded that compensation should be calculated in accordance with sub-clause 31.2 because the provisional completion certificate and the COD (Commercial Operation Date) were adversely affected and delayed. The Court noted the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, emphasizing that the Court could only intervene if the arbitral award was patently illegal or perverse.

Decision of the Court

The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was reasonable and legally sound. It upheld the applicability of sub-clause 31.2 of the Concession Agreement and dismissed the petitioner’s objection under Section 34. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

1 2 3 … 13