#delhi Archives - Page 21 of 22

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.

“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 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

3 Aug

The arbitral award against Spicejet in favour of the company’s former promoter, Kalanithi Maran, is upheld by the Delhi High Court.

Prime Legal

Blog #airlines, #arbitration, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #Spicejet

Title: SpiceJet Limited v. Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Decided on: 31^st July, 2023

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2019 & I.A. 1281/2019CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently dealt with two appeals challenging an arbitral award dated July 20, 2018, which directed SpiceJet’s Promoter and Chairman Ajay Singh to refund Rs. 308 crore towards warrants and Rs. 270 crore towards cumulative redeemable preference shares (CRPS) along with interest to Kal Airways and Kalanithi Maran. The Court also considered Maran’s appeal for damages of Rs. 1,323 crore from SpiceJet. The case revolved around the interpretation of the arbitration agreement and whether the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality or was against public policy.

Facts

The disputes between the parties arose concerning an Agreement concerning their financial obligations. The respondents invoked the arbitration clause stipulated in the Agreement for resolution. The petitioners argued that the entire amount of Rs. 370 crores, meant to be brought into their company as committed support, was to remain with the airline for eight years as per the Agreement’s terms. They contended that the Arbitral Tribunal had no authority to rewrite the contract by ordering the return of Rs. 270 crores and altering the transaction’s nature.

Analysis

The Delhi High Court, while considering the limited grounds under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to challenge an arbitral award, refused to interfere with the award. The Court emphasized that it could only intervene if there was an error apparent on the face of the record or if the award suffered from patent illegality or was against public policy. The Court examined the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and concluded that there was no gross illegality or perversity in the award. It held that the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal did not shock the conscience of the Court.

The Court’s analysis highlighted the importance of clear and precise decisions by arbitrators to withstand judicial review. It underscored the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards, respecting the autonomy and finality of arbitration proceedings.

Held

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals challenging the arbitral award and upheld its validity. The Court found no grounds to set aside the award, as it was not patently illegal, against public policy, or fundamentally flawed. The conclusions drawn by the Arbitral Tribunal were deemed acceptable and did not warrant interference by the Court. As a result, the award directing the refund of amounts and interest to Kal Airways and Kalanithi Maran was upheld, while rejecting Maran’s appeal seeking additional damages from SpiceJet.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here for Judgement

3 Aug

No State Employee Has The Right To Assume That The Regulations Controlling His Employment Will Stay the Same Indefinitely

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #NCLT

Title: Nirmala Vincent vs Union Of India & Ors..
Decided on: 3^rd July, 2023

+ W.P. (C) 2742/2021 & CM APPL. 20040/2021CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently dealt with a case where a petitioner sought relief by challenging the condition issued by the Union of India, which required a degree in law as a qualification for an Assistant to be promoted to the post of Court Officer in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The court analyzed the competence of the State to change service rules and qualifications and refused to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner joined the Registrar of Companies, Delhi, as a Lower Division Clerk and later was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk at the Company Law Board (CLB) on a deputation basis. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on a regular basis at the CLB. Later, in 2014, she was promoted to the post of Assistant on a regular basis. In 2016, she applied for the post of Court Officer in NCLT, New Delhi Bench on a deputation basis, and was selected for the same. However, she later resumed back to the post of Assistant. The petitioner sought the quashing of Recruitment Rules issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to the extent they required a degree in law as a mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Court Officer.

Analysis

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, wherein it was held that the State has the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications, conditions of service, avenues of promotions, and criteria for promotions. The Court emphasized that it is not for the Courts to direct the government on these matters or impose its views in place of the State’s discretion.

Held

Considering the Supreme Court’s ruling in the P.U. Joshi case, the Delhi High Court held that the State has the authority to change the rules relating to service, qualifications, and other conditions of service, as per the administrative exigencies. The Court declined to quash the condition that required a degree in law for an Assistant to be promoted to the post of Court Officer in NCLT. It found that the petitioner did not have the right to challenge the State’s authority to amend or alter service rules and held that the condition was not arbitrary or discriminatory. Therefore, the Court denied the relief sought by the petitioner. The Court further clarified that government servants have no inherent right to claim that the rules governing their service conditions remain the same throughout their tenure, except for safeguarding rights or benefits already earned or accrued. The Court held that it is within the competency of the State to modify and amend rules from time to time as per administrative exigencies.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here for judgement

1 … 19 20 21 22