#delhi Archives - Page 16 of 17

8 Aug

The Delhi High Court objects to the use of printed forms for matrimonial settlement agreements and directs mediation centres and family courts to ensure proper drafting.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #dismissed

Title: Vivek Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.
Decided on: 27th July, 2023

+ CRL.M.C. 5205/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has issued a directive regarding the drafting of matrimonial settlement deeds, emphasizing that they should not be on printed proforma. In a case related to a matrimonial dispute, the court expressed its concern about settlement agreements being mechanically drafted on printed forms and directed Mediation Centres and Family Courts to ensure proper drafting of settlement deeds.

Facts

The case pertains to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking the quashing of a case registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner and respondent got married in 2015, but differences and disputes led to their separation. An FIR was filed by the wife, and during the proceedings, the parties entered into an amicable settlement through a deed. The divorce was granted, and the husband made a payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- as per the settlement terms.

Advocates Sanjeev Kumar, Wahid Ali, and Ram Kamal Prasad represented the petitioners, while APP Digam Singh Dagar and Advocate Aman Srivastava appeared for the respondents.

Analysis

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, in the context of dealing with matrimonial disputes, expressed dissatisfaction with the common practice of drafting settlement agreements using printed proforma. The court believed that such proforma-based drafting lacked proper application of mind and conveyed a sense of mechanical processing. In line with this, the court directed Mediation Centres and Family Courts to ensure that settlement deeds are not drafted on printed proforma and should reflect proper consideration.

Held

The High Court observed that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement without any force, fear, or coercion, thereby deciding to conclude the proceedings and move forward with their lives. Considering the voluntary settlement and the divorce decree already granted, the court found no purpose in continuing the trial.

The court emphasized the need for settlement deeds to adhere to the judgment in the case of Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava (2020) 20 SCC 787, which sets standards for drafting settlement deeds. The court directed the circulation of its judgment to all Mediation Centres and Family Courts, urging them to draft settlement deeds that demonstrate proper application of mind and alignment with the mentioned legal precedent.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of 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- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to to view Judgement

7 Aug

IT Act| AO’s Attempt To Get Reopening Assessment Approved Is Just Rubber-Stamped: Delhi High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt, #itact

Title: Manujendra Shah v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.
Decided on: 18th July, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 12677/2018

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON’BLE & MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued under the Income Tax Act, ruling that the proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind. The reassessment was based on the incorrect invocation of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act and the erroneous determination of the market value of the land as on April 1, 1981, for the computation of capital gain. The Court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) failed to properly consider the relevant provisions and materials before reopening the assessment.

Facts

The Assessee, an individual, filed a return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, disclosing long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 1.47 crore from the sale of six parcels of land. The Assessee declared the full value of consideration (FVC) as Rs. 20.26 crore and the cost of acquisition (COA) as Rs. 17.77 crore, claiming an exemption of Rs. 1 crore under Section 54EC.

The Revenue initiated reassessment proceedings, alleging non-disclosure of the actual FVC of Rs. 5.32 crore, which was below the circle rate specified by the stamp valuation authority. They also invoked Section 50C and questioned the COA of Rs. 17.77 crore, claiming an escapement of income amounting to Rs. 18.56 crore.

The Assessee approached the High Court, contending that the AO did not possess relevant material before initiating the reassessment proceedings.

Analysis

The Delhi High Court observed that Section 50C clearly stipulates that the FVC should be taken as the circle rate fixed by the stamp valuation authority while calculating capital gain under Section 48 of the Act. In this case, there was no dispute that the Assessee had already calculated capital gains based on the circle rate of Rs. 20.26 crore. Hence, the invocation of Section 50C was inapplicable as the capital gain was already computed using the circle rate.

The significant difference in LTCG between the AO and the Assessee was due to the difference in the COA. The AO based the COA on inputs claimed by the DCIT (Central Circle), Dehradun, using a rate of Rs. 8 per square meter, while it was claimed that Rs. 10 per square meter should have been used.

The High Court noted that the AO failed to apply his mind to the inputs from DCIT (Central Circle) and did not provide any reason for adopting the rate of Rs. 8 per square meter instead of Rs. 10 per square meter for calculating COA.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that there was complete non-application of mind by the AO, both in the applicability of Section 50C and in failing to secure the relevant material from DCIT, Dehradun, for determining the market value of the land as on April 1, 1981, which forms the basis of COA. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

7 Aug

The Conversion of the Ordnance Factory Board Into Corporations Is in the National Interest: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhihighcourt, #dismiss, #HighCourt, #majoor, #majoorunion, #PIL, #union

Title: Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh v. Union of India & Anr.

Decided on: 3rd August, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 8056/2022 and C.M. Nos. 24455/2022, 24456/2022 & 13262/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Centre’s decision to convert the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) into seven corporations. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula opined that the move to corporatize the OFB is in the national interest and does not violate any constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens. The Court’s decision came in response to a PIL filed by the Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh (BPMS), a federation of trade unions representing workers in defense installations, including the Ordnance Factory Board.

Facts

The BPMS filed a PIL against a Gazette notification issued by the Government of India on October 1, 2021, which proposed the conversion of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) into seven major corporations. The petitioner federation raised several grievances in the writ petition, claiming that the workers’ views were ignored, there was an abuse of power by the government, arbitrariness, and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the government’s action suppressed the constitutional rights of government servants and silenced their voices. The petitioner sought to quash the Gazette notification, restrain the respondents from implementing it further, and seek appropriate orders in the interest of justice.

Analysis

The respondents, representing the Government of India, justified the policy decision, stating that it aimed to enhance functional autonomy, efficiency, and production in the interest of the nation. They assured that the service conditions and retiral benefits of existing OFB employees would be safeguarded as Central Government employees, and their pension liabilities would continue to be borne by the government. However, despite the government’s efforts to explain the benefits and protect the interests of the employees, the BPMS expressed its intention to go on an indefinite strike. In response, the government enacted the Essential Defence Services Act to ensure an uninterrupted supply of ordnance items to the armed forces and maintain essential defence services.

Held

The Delhi High Court, after a thorough consideration of the arguments, held that the government’s policy decision to convert OFB into seven corporate entities was in the national interest and aimed to enhance functional autonomy, efficiency, and innovation in Ordnance Factories. The Court emphasized that the power of policy-making lies solely with the executive, and the Courts cannot bind the government to its policy decisions taken in public and national interest. Moreover, the Court observed that the decision does not violate any constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens. It is well-established that Courts should not interfere with policy decisions made in the national interest. Therefore, the PIL was dismissed as the interests of the employees had been adequately protected by the government.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

4 Aug

Government Must Ensure Implementation Of Delhi Online Registration System For Document Preservation : Delhi High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #digital, #online, #Registration

Title: Monk Estates Private Limited & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Decided on: 27th July, 2023

+ W.P. (C) 254/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Introduction:

The Delhi High Court recently addressed a matter concerning missing documents from the Sub-Registrar’s office in Delhi and directed the Delhi Government to ensure the implementation of the Delhi Online Registration System (DORIS) for document preservation. The Court expressed serious concerns about the missing records and emphasized the need for an effective system to preserve documents.

Facts

In January 2023, a petition was filed seeking an inquiry into missing records from the Sub-Registrar-III’s office in Delhi related to the execution and registration of lands owned by Monk Estates Pvt. Ltd. An FIR was registered in 2019 after a significant delay of 14 years. The Court raised serious concerns about the missing records and directed authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter.

In February 2023, the concerned Sub-Registrar filed a status report stating that only a Lost Report had been registered in 2019, but no further investigation was conducted. The Court also sought detailed information about the DORIS system used for document registration and directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to ensure its effective implementation in all Sub-Registrar offices.

Analysis

The Court expressed doubts about the full implementation of the DORIS system despite its design. It noted that there was a need to ensure the availability of necessary systems and cloud service in all Sub-Registrar’s offices to prevent a situation like the present case, where important documents were missing, from recurring.

Held

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Government to continue the investigation into the missing records and register an FIR if necessary. It further instructed the GNCTD to ensure that the necessary systems and cloud service are made available to all Sub-Registrar’s offices for proper document preservation. The Court held that the Principal Secretary (Revenue), GNCTD, shall be personally responsible for ensuring the effective implementation of the DORIS system. With these directions, the Court disposed of the petition.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

4 Aug

Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order Against Son for Harassing Father: Senior Citizen Cannot Be Expected To Knock Door Of Civil Courts

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhihighcourt, #dismissed, #HighCourt, #seniorcitizen

Title: Ashish Randev & Anr. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
Decided on: 21st July, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 7554/2022 & CM APPL. 23192/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order of eviction passed by a District Magistrate in Delhi and affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD (Appellate Authority) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case involved protecting the old parents from harassment at the hands of the son and the daughter-in-law. The Court emphasized the objective of the Act to provide inexpensive and speedy protection to senior citizens from ill-treatment and non-maintenance by their children or legal heirs.

Facts

The petition was filed by a 90-year-old partially blind and deaf man, along with his 84-year-old wife, seeking eviction of their son and daughter-in-law from the ground floor of their property. The elderly couple alleged harassment from their son and daughter-in-law over the right to reside on the ground floor, which was also occupied by a school run by the old man’s daughter and wife. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the school was closed, and the elderly couple, who were bedridden, wanted to reside on the ground floor. However, the son and daughter-in-law objected to this arrangement.

The Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens directed the eviction of the son and his wife from the property. The appellate authority upheld this decision, which led the son to approach the Delhi High Court, challenging the eviction order.

Analysis

The Delhi High Court emphasized the objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which is to provide inexpensive and speedy protection to senior citizens from ill-treatment and non-maintenance by their children or legal heirs. The Court observed that the Act aims to safeguard the life and property of senior citizens, ensuring they have a shelter over their head and can sustain themselves independently without interference from their children or legal heirs. The Court further reiterated that senior citizens should not be forced to engage in legal battles to obtain possession of their property, and the Act is meant to protect their rights without the need for prolonged litigation.

Held

The High Court upheld the orders of the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, stating that the District Magistrate was well within its rights under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016, to pass an eviction order for protecting the elderly parents from harassment by their son and daughter-in-law. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition and affirmed the eviction order, ensuring the protection of the elderly couple’s property and well-being. The Court emphasized that the Act provides an effective remedy to senior citizens to seek eviction of children or legal heirs from their property when they refuse or fail to maintain them.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

1 … 14 15 16 17